Healthy Workplaces for Nurses: A Review of Lateral Violence and Evidence-Based Interventions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most nurses in the United States have experienced workplace bullying, also referred to as lateral violence. Workplace bullying is serious within professional nursing practice. These behaviors are often associated with detrimental consequences for nurses, their patients, and the greater health care organization. We performed a literature review to summarize recent studies on this pervasive yet persistent problem as well as evidence-based solutions. In environments where managers, supervisors, and administrators are unable or unwilling to address lateral violence, a common pattern is that offenders continue to target new employees and cause turmoil for workers and patients in healthcare settings. This work environment also causes harm and endangers patients. Although workplace bullying cannot be fixed with just one solution, there are different initiatives healthcare settings and educational institutions can implement to help prevent and eliminate workplace bullying, such as improving leadership training and interprofessional communication. Once these initiatives are put into practice, healthcare practices can start saving money, increasing employee satisfaction, retaining workers, and providing better healthcare services for their patients.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it