MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2070593508 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2005.19025

The Current Certification Model: Does It Reflect Nursing Knowledge?

2005· article· en· W2070593508 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gloria Joachim, Marcy Saxe-Braithwaite, Heather Mass, Robert Calnan, B Ratsoy

Notice bibliographique

RevueNursing leadership · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHealthcare Policy and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCertificationNursingCurrent (fluid)PsychologyNursing researchKnowledge managementPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Although certification is widely believed to be important, little recognition is given to certified nurses. Many nurses choose not to certify or recertify based largely on the lack of recognition and the perception that the certification process is costly and lengthy. The aim of this project was to collect data, in a two-dimensional format, about the amount of time used to prepare for the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) certification exams. On one axis, the specialties were noted, and on the other, the educational background was noted. A secondary aim of the project was to explore whether the concept of opportunity cost loss is useful for assessing the value of certification. Data from a group of certifying nurses were collected. Preparation time varied widely between individuals The Current Certification Model: Does It Reflect Nursing Knowledge? Gloria Joachim, RN, MSN Associate Professor, University of British Columbia School of Nursing Vancouver, BC Marcy Saxe-Braithwaite, RN, MScN, MBA Vice President, Programs and Chief Nursing Officer Providence Continuing Care Centre Kingston, ON Heather Mass, RN, MSc Chief of Nursing, Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia Vancouver, BC Robert Calnan, RN, MEd President, Canadian Nurses Association Manager, Burns, Plastics, EENT and Urology, Capital Health Region Victoria, BC Bernadet Ratsoy, RN, MSc Associate Dean of Health Sciences, British Columbia Institute of Technology (Retired) Burnaby, BC ON-LINE EXCLUSIVE 1 Nursing Leadership On-line Exclusive • April 2005 2 and specialties. The variation in preparation time suggests that differences may be due to age and education. Recommendations are given to change the structure of the certification process from a single-tiered exam to a multi-tiered exam that would reflect differences in nursing education. The purpose of certification is (1) to establish standards in specialty practice that will promote excellence in nursing care for Canadians, (2) to confirm competence in specialty practice and (3) to identify nurses who meet the national standards with a credential (CNA 2004a). Cary (2001) notes that certification should protect the public from unsafe care, distinguish between levels of care provided and give certified nurses a competitive advantage in the workplace. Many institutions now require specialty education or certification for employment in specialty areas (personal communication, Human Resources, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver General Hospital, April 2002). History of Certification in Canada Certification in Canada has a short history. The certification program of the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) began in 1980 with the recommendation by an ad hoc committee that CNA develop a certification program in the specialties (CNA 2004a). The criteria for a specialty group to qualify for credentialling status included having established standards; addressing a recurrent practice phenomenon; having a role description for practitioners; being supported by literature, education and research; having identified the number and distribution of nurses in the specialty; and having sufficient numbers of practitioners to support certification (CNA 2002: 5). At the time that data were collected for this study, CNA certification was available in 11 specialties; in 2004, 14 specialties were listed (CNA 2004a). Certification status spans five years. Recertification is available in all specialties. Prerequisites for Certification The eligibility criteria for becoming a certified nurse in Canada for all specialties other than Occupational Health consists of two options (CNA 2002: 2). In the first, the nurse must hold current Canadian registration, have accumulated 3,900 practising hours in the specialty during the last five years and have a supervisor or consultant in the specialty verification. In the second, one must hold current Canadian registration, have a nursing degree or post-basic nursing specialty course with at least 300 hours of work in the specialty, accumulate a minimum of 1,950 practice hours in the specialty during the last three years and have a supervisor or consultant verify the experience. To be eligible for certification in the specialty of Occupational Health, there are also two options. In the first, one must hold current Canadian registration, have accumulated at least 5,000 hours of work in Occupational Health during the last five years, have accumulated 75 hours of continuous education in Occupational Health during the last five years and have supervisor or consultant verification of activities. In the second, one must hold current registration, have a nursing degree or Occupational Health specialty course that is at least 300 hours long, have accumulated 75 hours of continuing education in Occupational Health during the last five years and have supervisor or consultant verification of activities. Methods The CNA certification office assisted by mailing a questionnaire to nurses who wrote the 2001 certification exams. Participants were asked about demographics, educational background and specialty, and were asked to record, on a weekly basis, the amount of time invested in all aspects of preparation for the certification exam. Data would be plotted in a two-dimensional database with specialty on the x axis and educational background on the y axis. If differences between the specialties occurred, the data could become the basis for generating equivalencies between specialties. For example, it may be determined that specialty A is more difficult than specialty B, specialty B is more difficult than specialty C and specialty B = specialty D. Using this logic, equivalencies and rankings could be established among the specialties. If differences within the specialties occurred, they would be analyzed depending upon the educational background. Results Forty nurses certifying in nine specialties returned the completed questionnaire. While this is a small sample, definitive trends emerged. All were women with a mean age of 43. Thirteen had diplomas in nursing, 22 had baccalaureate degrees and five had master’s degrees. Nineteen had some formal specialty education in the specialty in which they were certifying, and 21 had no formal specialty education. Nurses certified in the following specialties: Critical Care, Emergency, Gerontology, Nephrology, Occupational Health, Oncology, Perioperative and Psychiatric/Mental Health. Nurses in the specialties of Critical Care and Emergency had the most specialty education and were the youngest nurses with specialty education. In the Gerontology group, none of the nine nurses had specialty education. There was a wide variety in the mean amounts of preparation time for each specialty. The Perioperative specialty (mean of 40 hours) had the shortest amount of time, while Oncology (mean of 136.6 hours) had the longest. For individuals, preparation time varied from 20 to 350 hours. The youngest nurses with specialty education used the least amount of preparation time, while the oldest and most experienced nurses used the longest amounts of preparation time. The Current Certification Model: Does It Reflect Nursing Knowledge? 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 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)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Évaluation · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,984
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,085

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,099
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0050,006
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,457
Tête enseignante GPT0,388
Écart entre enseignants0,069 · 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.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
DomaineÉvaluation
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

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNursing leadershipMême sujetHealthcare Policy and ManagementTravaux en français237 207