Professional development and career planning for nurses working in care homes for older people: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A skilled, knowledgeable, and compassionate nurse workforce is pivotal to caring well for older people living in care homes. This requires the provision of continuing professional development and career planning for nurses, which are key also for nurse recruitment and retention. Continuing professional development and career planning strategies and interventions should be evidence-driven. OBJECTIVE: To identify the extent, range and nature of contemporary evidence regarding professional development and career planning for nurses caring for older people living in care homes. METHODS: The methodological framework used was the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was used as the reporting framework. Four databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2021. Results were screened independently by two reviewers using eligibility criteria. Full texts and the reference lists of eligible articles were reviewed. Data were extracted for key elements from the 25 articles included. RESULTS: Of the 25 articles, the majority were authored in the United States (n = 10) and UK (n = 8) with the remaining from Australia (n = 3), Canada (n = 3) and the Netherlands (n = 1). Four articles reported on professional development programmes. Three literature reviews addressed challenges for nurse participation in professional development, experiences of care home nurses as clinical leaders and managers, and leadership. Two expert commentaries reported on the challenges related to professional development and career planning for care home nurses. Sixteen empirical studies investigated a range of topics including: competencies, roles, intention to stay and leave, continuing professional development, and leadership. Key emergent factors that support professional development and career planning were as follows: access to structured learning opportunities addressing knowledge and skills specific to nursing frail older adults, a supportive working environment including adequate staffing, study time and flexible working, and integration of leadership development. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This scoping review has highlighted factors that support and challenge professional development and career planning for nurses working in the care home sector. There remain important gaps in the opportunities for professional development and career planning for care home nurses that warrant attention.
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 | 0,016 | 0,064 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».