MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2009148006 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2005.19026

Singing in Different Keys: Enactment of Advanced Nursing Practice in British Columbia

2005· article· en· W2009148006 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rita Schreiber, Marjorie MacDonald, Bernie Pauly, Heather Davidson, Jane Crickmore, Lesley Moss, Janet Pinelli, Sandra Regan, Carolyn Hammond

Notice bibliographique

RevueNursing leadership · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueNursing Roles and Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNursingHealth careSpecialtyCommissionMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This paper reports on Phase I findings from a three-phase qualitative study on advanced nursing practice in British Columbia. The intent of the study was to guide policy development regarding new and/or advanced nursing roles, and this first phase explored the current understanding of and perceived need for advanced nursing practice roles in British Columbia. Key findings include widespread interest in and confusion about advanced nursing practice; marked variation in the roles, educational background and authority to practise of self-identified advanced practice nurses; and underutilization of registered nurses within the BC healthcare system. In the past decade, interest in advanced nursing practice (ANP) roles, such as that of nurse practitioner, has accelerated in Canada as employers and governments seek efficiencies in delivery of healthcare services (Alcock 1996; Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada 2002; Howlett and Tamlyn 1999). This growing interest has occurred in spite of confusion about what APN is and how it relates to specialty, extended or expanded nursing roles (Alcock 1996; Manning 1999). In this paper, we report on the qualitative findings from Phase I of a three-phase study designed to inform policy direction regarding advanced nursing practice roles (Schreiber et al. 2003). Background Healthcare in Canada is in flux. Cost pressures, provider shortages, system restructuring and increased patient acuity, chronicity and complexity in institutions and communities have led to increased interest in ANP roles (Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada 2002; Dunn and Nicklin 1995; Goss Gilroy 2001; National Forum on Health 1997). Nurses working in ANP roles provide appropriate and cost-effective continuity of care (Carter 1997; DiCenso 1998; Horrocks et al. 2002; Safriet 1992) as well as education, support and mentorship for staff nurses and others with whom they work (CNA 2002; Irvine et al. 2000; Schreiber et al. 2003; Sidani et al. 2000). The problem, however, has been considerable confusion regarding definitions, roles, functions, competencies, appropriate practice environments, educational requirements, credentials, regulations and legislation required for ANP (Alcock 1996; Brown 1998; Manning 1999). This confusion reflects international debate regarding the nature and scope of ANP (Castledine 2002; Daly and Carnwall 2003; Redekop 1997; Rose et al. 2003; Scott 1999; Wilson-Barnett et al. 2000). Across Canada there are nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, expandedand extended-role nurses and a variety of nurses with special job titles (e.g., diabetic nurse) (Alcock 1996; Manning 1999). Even within the same job title, there is confusion about the nature of advanced practice, particularly regarding the required educational preparation. For example, 139 of the 295 self-identified clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) in British Columbia at the start of the current study had nursing diplomas as their highest level of education in nursing, even though the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia (RNABC) and the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) have stated that a CNS requires a master’s or doctoral degree in nursing (CNA 1993; RNABC 1998a,b). Confusion permeates both nursing and policy circles and stands in contrast to the situation in the United States, where ANP is clearly defined and firmly entrenched (Davies and Hughes 1995; Pinelli 1997; Safriet 2002). This confusion has contributed to the slow acknowledgment, growth and integration of ANP roles into the healthcare system in Canada and in British Columbia. Adding to the confusion is the insufficiency of empirical research to inform the discussion and debate about the nature of ANP roles in the province and in Canada. In the absence of research, much of the debate is based on observation, opinion and anecdotal evidence. To prepare for future growth of ANP roles in the province, representatives from the BC Ministry of Health (now BC Ministry of Health Planning), the University of Victoria School of Nursing, RNABC and the Capital Health Region (now Vancouver Island Health Authority) initiated a collaborative study of ANP. The overall purpose of this three-phase study was to support decision-making and policy direction related to advanced practice by exploring what registered nurses practising in new and/or advanced roles can contribute to health and service delivery needs in British Columbia. Approval for human subject research was obtained from the University of Victoria. In our research project, we used the term “advanced nursing practice” (ANP) because it is the term used in the CNA’s framework on advanced nursing practice (CNA 2002), which provided the conceptual framework for our study. We acknowledge, however, the emerging consensus in the nursing literature about the importance of distinguishing between the term “advanced nursing practice” Singing in Different Keys: Enactment of Advanced Nursing Practice in British Columbia 3

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,841
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,137
Tête enseignante GPT0,418
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNursing leadershipMême sujetNursing Roles and PracticesTravaux en français237 207