MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391611478 · doi:10.1111/jan.16092

A <scp>strengths‐based</scp> qualitative exploration of critical care nurses' reasons for remaining in critical care

2024· article· en· W4391611478 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily K. Hyde, Jennifer Dunsford, Stephanie Van Haute, Karen Throndson, Annette Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of ManitobaWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchNursingCritical care nursingMedicinePsychologyHealth careSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Globally, the nursing shortage is a growing concern. Much of the research on retention of nurses focuses on the experience of those who left positions. In this study, we set out to listen to critical care nurses (CCRNs) who have chosen to remain in their positions to understand the factors retaining them in critical care. DESIGN: This interpretive descriptive study was guided by the following research question: 'what factors influence CCRN's decision to continue to work in critical care?' METHODS: Digitally recorded interviews and a focus group were conducted between July 2022 and January 2023 using a semi-structured, strengths-based interview guide with CCRNs from three critical care units at a tertiary hospital in a city in a central Canadian province. Transcribed interviews were analysed using open, axial and selective coding and constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two CCRNs participated in interviews and three in a focus group. The theme of Respect, demonstrated through the interconnected concepts of Working to Full Scope, Team, Rotations and Compensation was identified. Working to Full Scope was described as providing nursing care aligned with how each nurse envisions what nursing is. Being part of a Team led by strong nurse leaders that provides opportunities and supports the sharing of their perspectives was also found. Respect was also found to be demonstrated through Rotations that recognize that work is one part of these nurses' lives. Compensation that reflects the increased education, knowledge and skills required in critical care was the final concept of Respect. CONCLUSION: Organizations should focus their efforts across the identified concepts to demonstrate Respect for CCRNs and retain them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this study provide ways to support the retention of CCRNs. IMPACT: This research will have an impact on nursing leaders by providing tangible ways to retain CCRNs. REPORTING METHOD: Reporting of this work was guided by the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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 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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.417 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207