MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2027260197 · doi:10.1136/ebn.8.2.40

McCormack B, Manley K, Garbett R, editors.<i>Practice development in nursing.</i>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. ISBN 1405110384

2005· article· en· W2027260197 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret B. Harrison

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueResearch in Social Sciences
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublishingLibrary sciencePsychologySociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Practice development is a nebulous concept.It can mean anything-or everything-related to professional practice.Practice development in nursing brings a thoughtful academic and research perspective to the field.The collection is edited by Brendan McCormack, Kim Manley, and Rob Garbett who, combined, have an impressive amount of experience in practice development in the UK.The book is particularly relevant for a UK readership.For North American and other readers, a word of caution: practice developer, a role referred to throughout the book, seems to be common in UK settings but may not be a familiar title in other countries.Garbett and McCormack (chapter 1) note 71 activities of practice developers that are organised into 6 categories: promoting and facilitating change, translation and communication, responding to external influences, education, facilitating the implementation of research into practice, and audit and quality functions.The skills described fit various professional practice and development positions.These include advanced practice roles, nurse educators, clinical nurse specialists, and even nurse managers in some settings.It is noteworthy that professional development is typically viewed more broadly than education (continuing) in Canada and the US.Practice development in nursing has 2 parts: part 1 (chapters 1-7) focuses on theoretical and methodological perspectives, and part 2 comprises a series of chapters recounting actual experiences with practice development.Part 1 includes an introductory chapter and a collection of previously published work, including a concept analysis of practice development; a framework for thinking about practice development in terms of technical, practical, and emancipatory issues; and a description of an implementation framework and initiative developed by the Royal College of Nurses.The role and use of evidence in practice development is embedded in the chapters of part 1.The substantive challenges of appreciating, knowing, and implementing evidence useful to nursing practice are somewhat superficially addressed.The complexity of integrating either formally synthesised knowledge, such as quality practice guidelines, or knowledge that does not have a synthesised tool (eg, process of care or experiences of illness) could be further elaborated.This would help practice developers and practising nurses to operationalise and use the authors' conceptualisation of practice development.The authors of the papers in part 1 highlight the paradoxes/ perplexities that exist between practice and professional development, as well as between theory/frameworks and actual experiences of practice development.Although the intent was not to ''academicise'' (p33) practice development, this section is at times dense, and front line nurses and practice development professionals may find it challenging to distil the key points for use.Part 2 includes 6 chapters recounting various experiences with practice development.The chapters are accounts of practice development initiatives in UK settings and Trusts (regional health authorities).They are characterised by their reflective nature, with comment on personal aspects as well as organisational and policy contexts.The authors are frank about what went well and what did not.Chapters 8210 are about changes in particular areas of care within a Trust: older persons with dementia, acute mental health care, home visitors' use of a family assessment, and a Royal College of Nursing initiative on child health nursing.Two large scale, Trust wide efforts are described in chapters 11 and 12.Each of these chapters is accompanied by a commentary, where observations link the case study with the theoretical concepts described in part 1 or provide further elicitation of relevant practice and policy issues.The final chapter of part 2 is a reflection and summary by the editors.Some readers may find it useful to read this chapter before reading the first part of the book in order to better appreciate the perspective of the editors on the frameworks and methods.As someone who has been actively engaged in both practice and professional development for more than a decade, I would agree that the authors have met their goal of challenging current thinking on practice development.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,054
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,182

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0540,050

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 Opus0,062
Tête enseignante GPT0,405
Écart entre enseignants0,343 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-Based NursingMême sujetResearch in Social SciencesTravaux en français237 207