Rural home care nurses’ experiences with continuing nursing education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Rural home care nurses require access to continuing nursing education to address the increasing complexity of client care needs. There is currently limited literature on continuing nursing education for rural home care nurses. The purpose of this study was to explore the continuing nursing education experiences of rural home care nurses. Sample: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit registered nurses who worked in publicly funded rural home care in one western Canadian province, in communities with a population of less than 10,000 people. Twenty rural home care nurses participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Methods: This study used interpretive description as its method of inquiry and analysis. Data was collected between December 2020 and May 2021 and the analysis was supported using NVivo 12 software. Findings: Key findings from this study contribute to the description of western Canadian rural home care nursing roles and the degree of autonomy required to provide expert care in the home environment. Rural home care nurses’ experiences with continuing education are impacted by external factors including (1) Chameleonic Practice (One-Person Show, Professional Intersection, Becoming their Person), (2) Foundational Instability (Roadblocks to Learning, Stretched Thin, Rural Repatriation) and (3) Learning Leadership (Filling the Learning Bucket, Finding a Way, Learning Reciprocity). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that the continuing nursing education experiences of rural home care nurses is dependent on many factors. Significant policy changes and updated standards of practice are required to support safe client care through the delivery of evidence-informed continuing nursing education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".