Nurses' Perceptions of the Impact of a Renal Nursing Professional Practice Model on Nursing Outcomes, Characteristics of Practice Environments and Empowerment--Part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a renal nursing professional practice model (PPM) on nurses'perceptions of empowerment, characteristics of practice environments and the impact on nursing care outcomes in a university-based teaching hospital in Canada. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used. This paper will focus on the qualitative results. Content analysis was the data analysis method used. The following themes emerged: 1) Attunement, familiarity/knowing the patient, going the distance, 2) Patient outcomes, consistency and continuity of care, autonomy/taking the initiative, 3) Nurse rewards: satisfaction and accountability, empowerment/input, and 4) Facilitating systems: communication, support and assignment. The quantitative results had a significant (p = .005) improvement post-PPM implementation in the nursing foundations for quality of care subscale of the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (NWI-PES) and organizational relationships (p =.016) measured by the Conditions of Work Effectiveness II (CWEQ-II) questionnaires. This study provides evidence for PPMs and primary nursing as effective frameworks to positively impact nursing and patient outcomes in a hemodialysis unit.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".