Nurses’ Contributions to “Getting Them Better” in Rehabilitation Units:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to explore the perceptions of nurses' contributions to inpatient rehabilitation and interprofessional teams in a Canadian context. DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory study was performed in three Ontario hospital rehabilitation units. METHODS: Thirty-one registered practical nurses having at least 1 year of rehabilitation nursing experience in geriatric or stroke hospital settings were interviewed using a semistructured guide. An inductive thematic analysis of the transcripts was completed. FINDINGS: Four themes emerged in relation to the perceived contributions of nurses. The first, Therapy Practice , referred to actions directly related to point of care and included "hands-on/hands-off," reminders, and repetition of therapeutic motions. The second, Psychosocial Support, involved the psychosocial support of the patient to maintain their engagement with rehabilitation. The nurse's role in coordinating patient care and maintaining the physical functioning of the patient for participation in rehabilitation formed the third and fourth themes, Coordinating Patient Care and Maintaining Patient Physical Functioning , respectively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings have direct implications for delivery of quality whole-person care for optimal patient outcomes through inclusion of nurses in interprofessional collaboration on rehabilitation units. CONCLUSION: The nurses identified their pervasive influences in explaining, demonstrating, and practicing with the goal to help the patient to (re)gain independence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".