Transitioning to Critical Care: An Exploration of the New Graduate Registered Nurse Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing demand on the health-care system and increasing human resource shortages, the delivery of critical care services is facing a crisis. Although funding is being provided to increase the number of critical care beds to meet the physical demands, the supply of qualified registered nurses (RNs) is decreasing. To increase the required staff, new graduate RNs are being hired into critical care units more than ever before. The influx of newly graduated RNs has been deemed controversial as it is viewed that new graduates are unable to engage in complex decision-making or complete the technical skills required in critical care. The research objective of this study was to explore the experiences of new graduate RNs entering a critical care unit and to gain an understanding of the barriers and facilitators present when transitioning to the unit. Semi-structured interviews with eleven participants were conducted with new graduates from four critical care units within two major teaching hospitals in Southwestern Ontario. A qualitative descriptive design described by Sandelowski (2000) was used for this research study. The findings describe the experiences of new graduates including the emotional experience, the times of transition, becoming a professional, embracing team support and learning to feel comfortable within the unit. These findings will be of interest to a broad audience including nursing students, new graduates, hospital managers and administrators, educators and policy makers. It is anticipated that these results will help inform organizational policy and programs and will direct further research on this topic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".