Physicians' perceptions of nurse practitioners and collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nurse practitioner is a relatively new member of the health care team in Manitoba. A collection of agencies have worked both independently and mutually since the mid 1990s to formally implement the nurse practitioner role. Manitoba Health, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, College of Physicians and Surgeons and University of Manitoba Faculty of Nursing have all been involved. While it is envisioned that the nurse practitioner role will mesh with the physician role in a collaborative relationship, a paucity of literature exists that examines physicians' perceptions of nurse practitioners and collaboration with nurse practitioners. This qualitative project explored physicians' knowledge of nurse practitioners and perceptions of collaboration with nurse practitioners. Focus group discussions with eleven physicians (8 resident physicians and 3 faculty physicians) were conducted to develop an understanding of their knowledge and perceptions. Both resident and faculty physicians had specific, yet largely contrasting concerns about the nurse practitioner role, which subsequently influenced their perceptions of collaboration with nurse practitioners. Resident physicians tended to accept the nurse practitioner role but were restrictive in terms of responsibilities and capabilities. Faculty physicians tended to view the nurse practitioner role and collaboration without limitations but very much dependent on the individual nurse practitioner and his/her background, personality and ability. It is hoped that the findings of this project will contribute to the body of knowledge about physician and nurse practitioner collaboration. Additionally, themes emanating from this project may guide future discussions between the disciplines with respect to nurse practitioners and collaboration with nurse practitioners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".