DOP028 Second N-ECCO Consensus Statements on the European nursing roles in caring for patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This is the second Nurse European Crohns and Colitis (N-ECCO) consensus statements document addressing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) nursing across Europe. The over-arching aim of ECCO is to improve the care of patients with IBD through the development of guidelines, education and research. Current evidence is fundamental to enable N-ECCO to meet this progressive aim. This document updates the first N-ECCO consensus statements based on the “ideal” standard of care, provides additional statements and evidence supporting contemporary IBD nursing practice, whilst acknowledging the extensive variety in IBD nursing across Europe. In line with Standard Operating Procedures set out by ECCO, the proposal to update the statements was approved by ECCO’s Governing Board. An international call for N-ECCO members was sent in January 2017; 10 nurses and the current N-ECCO committee of 2017 were selected and divided into four working groups (WG), each responsible for a different section of the consensus document. Each WG performed literature searches using terms consistent with their group statements to enable review of original statements and to add new statements. The consensus process was based on a modified Delphi method. The updated statements document was submitted to an online platform for discussion and for online voting by all national representatives of N-ECCO. 63% of national representatives and the consensus working group voted. A total of 31 statements were generated, in comparison to 25 from the first consensus document. Eighty-three per cent of the statements gained over 90% consensus, suggesting that further online consensus rounds were unnecessary. Statements receiving less than 80% consensus were reviewed and for the second and final voting round, which was held in June 2017, the consensus working group achieved 100% consensus agreement for all 31 statements. The consensus statements were divided into four sections. “Fundamental IBD Nursing”, “Advanced IBD Nursing”, “Advanced IBD nursing care for particular situations”, and “Benefit of an IBD Nurse”. There was a wide range in the level of evidence for IBD-nursing. However, a substantial number of publications were added to support IBD nursing and the benefits of the IBD nurse in this second version of the N-ECCO Consensus statements. The updated consensus statements build upon the orginal document to provide contemporary guidance at local, national and international levels of IBD nursing care. They are intended to inform, inspire, and improve the standards of IBD care, providing evidence for IBD nurses to move from fundamental to advanced care, and to encourage research by IBD nurses. The consensus statements will also work as a base when creating educational programmes for IBD nurses.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,032 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,013 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».