‘Our Voices Aren't Being Heard’: A qualitative descriptive study of nurses' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in care supporting older people's functioning during a hospital stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Older people admitted to hospital are highly susceptible to functional decline and related complications. Care supporting their functioning is complex and requires healthcare professionals working in concert, with nurses playing a central role. Yet, little is known about nurses' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in care supporting functioning in acutely admitted older people. To fill this knowledge gap, we elucidate the perspectives of nurses in Ontario, Canada, on IPC in care supporting older people's functioning during a hospital stay. METHODS: We employed a qualitative methodology in conjunction with a qualitative descriptive design. Thirteen focus groups were held with a purposeful, criterion-based sample of 57 acute care nurses practising in a range of acute care settings (e.g. Emergency, General Medicine, General Surgery, Intensive Care, Coronary Care). Data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: We identified two overarching themes: (1) IPC is improving, but nurses are excluded from decision-making and (2) nurse advocacy causes friction with other professionals. The first theme captures nurses' perception that IPC in older people's care is improving, but nurses are marginalised in interprofessional decision-making. As a result, nurses perceive that their knowledge is devalued, and their contributions to care supporting older people's functioning are undermined. The second theme underlines a tension between interprofessional team practices and patient- and family-centred care, while also demonstrating nurses' increasing willingness to act as patient and family advocates. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can be used to enhance IPC in care supporting the functioning of acutely hospitalised older people. To improve IPC, clinical and administrative leaders should cultivate more egalitarian team relationships that encourage nurses to contribute to decision-making and advocate on behalf of older patients and their families.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".