A factual investigation of the information nurses transfer between facilities through nursing summary reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To clarify the medical care information nurses share among multiple facilities such as hospitals and visiting nursing stations, specialized nursing homes, and geriatric health service facilities in Japan.Methods: The research design was an exploratory survey study. We administered a questionnaire survey to registered nurses with at least three years of clinical experience from August 2020 to September 2021. Data from 257 participants were analyzed using simple tabulation, chi-square test, and univariate and multivariate analyses. Items that could not be addressed by nursing summaries alone included how to interact with patients and families, activities of daily living, and nursing procedures.Results: The results indicate that nurses require information on nursing procedures, how to interact with patients and their families, and care. Essential nursing summary report items included infectious disease, allergy, medications, final bowel movements, and tube feeding. The essential items that varied across facilities were commissioned physicians, patients’ perspectives on the disease, regular medical examinations, and peripheral symptoms.Conclusions: The summary reports were used to exchange information with other nurses, get confirmation of nursing procedures, and get confirmation of the history of the present illness. In the future, they should include customized content depending on the information requirements of each institution. These results can be used as a reference for the nursing summaries sought by recipients, leading to improved quality of care after a transition.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".