MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385377326 · doi:10.1002/nop2.1951

The role of nurses in inpatient geriatric rehabilitation units: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4385377326 on OpenAlex
Nicole A. Guitar, Denise M. Connelly, Kristin Prentice, Angela Nguyen, Amanda McIntyre, Eric F. Tanlaka, Nancy Snobelen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioUniversity of WindsorWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLGeriatric rehabilitationRehabilitationNursingThematic analysisMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyQualitative researchPsychological interventionPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: (1) To review and synthesize research on the contributions of nurses to rehabilitation in inpatient geriatric rehabilitation units (GRUs), and (2) to compare these reported contributions to the domains of international rehabilitation nursing competency models. The roles and contributions of nurses (e.g. Registered Practical Nurses, Registered Nurses and Licensed Practical Nurses) in GRUs are non-specific, undervalued, undocumented and unrecognized as part of the formal Canadian rehabilitation process. DESIGN: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines were used. METHODS: Six databases were searched for relevant literature: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Nursing and Allied Health. English articles were included if they examined nursing roles or contributions to inpatient geriatric rehabilitation. Integrated synthesis was used to combine the qualitative and quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used for coding. Three sets of international competency models were amalgamated to explore how different nurse roles in geriatric rehabilitation were portrayed in the included literature. RESULTS: Eight studies published between 1991 and 2020 were included in the review. Five main geriatric rehabilitation nursing roles were generated from synthesis of the domains of international rehabilitation nursing competency models: conserver, supporter, interpreter, coach and advocate. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses working in inpatient geriatric rehabilitation are recognized more for their role in conserving the body than their roles in supporting, interpreting, coaching and advocacy. Interprofessional team members appear to be less sure of the nurses' role in the rehabilitation unit. Nurses themselves do not acknowledge the unique rehabilitation aspects of care for older adults. Enhancing formal education, or adding continuing education courses, to facilitate role clarity for nurses in geriatric rehabilitation could improve nurses' and interprofessional healthcare team members' understandings of the possible contributions of nurses working in rehabilitation settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it