Nurse-patient Relationships and Expatiate Nurse in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The therapeutic relationships-form of the nurse-patient-relationship are formed within short durations to address patient care needs quickly and effectively, as well as psychosocial support for family or friends. The purpose of this paper is to focus on challenges that nurses can experience when trying to establish therapeutic relationships with their patients when they are in their communications due to cultural, religious or language challenges. Databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest, were used to obtain a comprehensive overview of the literature. The synthesis of the articles grouped together to identify common patterns or themes. The data was integrated into the therapeutic relationship and its elements. The disparities between nurses and their patients may hinder nurses’ abilities to establish a therapeutic nurse-patient relationship with their Saudi patients and families. This interruption in creating such relationships may lead to a decrease in the quality of care. Effective communication seems to be associated with the intimacy of the relationship, which creates a sense of trust. A nurse’s empathy that balances power between both parties provides a perception of respect for the patients. Pre-departure education programs may help expatriate nurses learn about the culture of their hosts prior to their arrival in that country. These programs should provide opportunities for expatriate nurses to learn about, discuss and explore how to ‘fit into’ these cultural practices. Mentoring programs that electronically connect previous nurses who worked in the host country with new recruits in that country should be provided. Thus, the recruited nurses can benefit from their colleagues' experiences and have a more realistic view of what working in that host country is like. This review will help to raise leaders’ awareness about the challenges experienced by expatriate nurses who deliver care to patients with divergent belief systems than their own.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".