The work of patient flow management: A grounded theory study of emergency nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The current crisis of emergency department overcrowding demands novel approaches. Despite a growing body of patient flow literature, there is little understanding of the work of emergency nurses. This study explored how emergency nurses perform patient flow management. METHODS: Constructivist grounded theory and situational analysis methodologies were used to examine the work of emergency nurses. Twenty-nine focus groups and interviews of 27 participants and 64 hours of participant observation across four emergency departments were conducted between August 2022 and February 2023. Data were analyzed using coding, constant comparative analysis, and memo-writing to identify emergent themes and develop a substantive theory. FINDINGS: Patient flow management is the work of balancing department resources and patient care to promote collective patient safety. Patient safety arises when care is ethical, efficient, and appropriately weighs care timeliness and comprehensiveness. Emergency nurses use numerous patient flow management strategies that can be organized into five tasks: information gathering, continuous triage, resource management, throughput management, and care oversight. CONCLUSION: Patient flow management is complex, cognitively demanding work. The central contribution of this paper is a theoretical model that reflects emergency nurses'conceptualizations, discourse, and priorities. This model lays the foundation for knowledge sharing, training, and practice improvement.
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 | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".