MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412402767 · doi:10.17483/4yyj9k81

Nursing Education for the Coordination of Care and Services: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4412402767 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marlène Karam, Pegah Torabi, Isabelle Brault

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Advancement in Nursing Education - Avancées en formation infirmière · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingNurse educationMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: A crucial part of the health care field is the coordination of care and services, which requires suitable education for the nurses who are responsible for it. However, there is great diversity in the educational programs provided to those nurses, with significant differences in terms of content and pedagogical methods. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and assess educational programs to determine preferred content and content warranting further study as well as to highlight existing pedagogical innovations. Methodology: We systematically researched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Global Health, JBI, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and EBM Reviews – Cochrane databases for sources published between January 2008 and December 2023. We also covered grey literature. We did not apply any limits to the type of research design. We used a thematic approach to data analysis, both deductive (guided by the theoretical framework Modèle des activités de coordination des soins et des services pour les personnes ayant des besoins complexes) and inductive, and submitted the findings to a review by experts. Findings: Nineteen courses or programs were selected from among scientific sources (n = 15) and grey literature (n = 4). Of those, the coordination activities category “intervening with intra- and inter-disciplinary teams” appears less well covered than the other three categories of the model. Specifically, activities touching on the clarification of roles and responsibilities (n = 5) and leadership (n = 5) are rarely addressed. As well, in the category “intervening with the person and those close to them,” the activity related to planning end of life care is barely addressed (n = 2). Several pedagogical innovations were identified, including the involvement of the person and someone close to them in simulation activities, using conceptual maps to develop an individualized care and services plan, and use of evolutive case studies. Discussion and Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance of revising and enhancing existing educational programs to better prepare nurses to meet the growing challenges of coordinating care. Continuous reflection on how to adapt courses, whether initial or continuing, is needed to guarantee more efficient and sustainable coordination of care.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0210.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.503 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality Advancement in Nursing Education - Avancées en formation infirmièreSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207