MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073644346

Advancing nursing practice: The role of the nurse practitioner in an acute stroke program

2006· other· en· W7073644346 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · 2006
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute strokeAcute careExcellenceNurse practitionersReferralStroke (engine)Health carePopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both patient and staff satisfaction with the SNP role has been high as it relates to quality of care delivery and accessibility of care and service. In particular, patients express satisfaction with the continuity of care experienced throughout the stroke care continuum, from acute in-hospital care to postdischarge follow-up. Improvements have been realized in systems and processes of care with the implementation of the SNP role. These include reductions in door-to-needle times in the administration of tPA (from 90 minutes to 60 minutes), rapid assessment and diagnostic interventions through coordination of are activities (e.g., door-to-CT scan times reduced from 60 minutes to 30 minutes), and faster consultation responses within the organization. Instituting the nurse practitioner role early in the development of the Calgary Stroke Program enhanced patient care while advancing the nursing discipline. The SNP has created a role that extends beyond that of physician helper to an autonomous nursing practice that has been beneficial to both patients with stroke and the regional healthcare delivery system. With the ability to practice autonomously, the nurse practitioner can aid in the expedient delivery of complex, comprehensive stroke care, as has been the case in the Calgary Stroke Program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology)Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207