Acute Care Nurse Practitioners', Physicians' and Staff Nurses' Relationships with Patients: A Descriptive, Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) are a new addition to the Canadian health care system, having been introduced in the Canadian health care system in the late 1980s. While some authors have suggested that nurse practitioners offer “something special” to patient care, no evidence to date has substantiated this claim. The findings of this grounded theory study offer a theory (Acute Care Health Professional-Patient Relationship (ACHPPR) Theory) to describe how three types of health care professionals establish relationships with patients in acute care settings (Figure 7). This qualitative study explored relationships that ACNPs, physicians and staff nurses establish with patients in a large urban multi-site university-affiliated hospital. Six quartets (patient, ACNP, physician, staff nurse) were recruited and interviews, using a semi-structured guide were audio-taped and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Each type of relationship was found to have a unique focus; ACNPs focus on making connections with patients, physicians focus on managing patients’ diseases and staff nurses focus on meeting patients’ needs. In order to establish relationships with patients, readiness conditions must be met. Health professionals use strategies to influence the achievement of readiness conditions as well as to move forward with relationship development. Each type of relationship varies in the range of potential intensity that can be achieved, which is influenced by various dimensions. Relational intensity ranges from the uncommon clinical relationship, which focuses on the patient’s disease, through the more typical professional relationship characterized by a comfortable rapport and then finally to the most relationally intense, but rare, personal relationship. If a relationship reaches professional or personal levels of relational intensity, relational products become evident. When comparing these three health professional-patient relationships, similarities and differences have been identified. Analysis of patient interviews yielded themes that substantiate the ACHPPR theory. The ACHPPR theory offers a beginning understanding of the complementary nature of three types of health professional-patient relationships in the acute care setting and has the potential to influence practice, education, theory development and future research related to ACNP-patient relationships.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".