MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404296136 · doi:10.29173/cjen284

Position Statement: Use of non-registered nurses as health care providers in the emergency department

2002· article· en· W4404296136 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Editorial Team CJEN

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition statementEmergency departmentPosition (finance)Statement (logic)Medical emergencyHealth careNursingMedicineEmergency nursingBusinessFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nationally, emergency departments have begun to implement alternative staffing options to include the use of non-RN health care providers.Non-RN health care providers may include: licensed practical nurses (LPNs), nursing assistants, emergency department technicians, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and paramedics.The inclusion of non-RN health care providers within the staffing mix of an emergency department does not promote comprehensive emergency care.There is evidence which supports that a higher ratio of RN staffing is directly related to improved patient outcomes, lower mortality rates, and reduced costs.The impact of the use of non-RN personnel within emergency departments can influence the quality of care, patients' perceptions of satisfaction with care, pain management, preventable complications, patient education, and length of stay.Since research does not exist identifying reliable staffing ratios or staffing formulas which would ensure optimal quality of care, the promotion of alternative staffing options could therefore negatively impact patients in the emergency department.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0340.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.018

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency NursingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207