The Effect of Nurse-Patient Communication on Quality of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse-patient communication is one of the elements of quality healthcare provision as it affects patient satisfaction, safety, treatment compliance, and general clinical outcomes. This study discusses the multivariate nature of the interaction between communication and quality of care through verbal and non-verbal communication, cultural and emotional elements, and how technology and leadership play a role in the healthcare environment. The study, through the evidence-based approach, raises the importance of empathy, trust, and emotional intelligence in patient-centered care and impedimental factors like language differences, lack of cultural understanding, and insufficient training, which do not facilitate the effective communication. The ethical and legal aspects that inform the professional communication are also mentioned in the research and include confidentiality, informed consent, and autonomy of the patient. Lastly, the prospects are to incorporate digital resources, lifelong learning, as well as empathy-based education to enhance the competence of nurses in communication. All in all, the conclusion of the study is that effective communication is not a soft skill, but a crucial clinical competency that can directly enhance patient outcomes, safety, and satisfaction levels.
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 | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".