MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7132880205

Continuing competence in nursing: a study of issues and perceptions

2006· dissertation· W7132880205 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Kosco Sirotnik

Notice bibliographique

RevueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Langue
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueNursing education and management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCompetence (human resources)Continuing educationPerceptionLifelong learningProfessional responsibilityQuality (philosophy)Professional associationProfessional standardsContinuing professional development
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Throughout the history of nursing's professional evolution, its practitioners have remained committed to professional accountability, responsibility for the need to maintain competence through continuing education, lifelong learning, and to the quality and rigor of their educational preparation in undergraduate and graduate programs. In broad terms, the purpose of this thesis was to examine the opinions and concerns of a sample of RNs and RPNs of the changes implied by the RHPA: record their recent and current activities taken to accommodate the continuing competency expectation; identify the different patterns and settings of these CE activities in relation to respondents' work responsibilities; assess their outcome in terms of the impact on quality of care; and demonstrate a measurement device of practical use for monitoring the competency of nurses. The monitoring of practice and ensuring quality care is important for nursing on two counts: (1) for the protection of the public and the creation of trust and confidence between patient and nurse which is an important factor in promoting patient recovery and maintaining health; and also, (2) for members of the profession itself, in order to foster confidence in the caliber of their work and professional judgements. This responsibility represents the transfer of professional power, and the recognition of professional expertise and status to an occupational group that has struggled for many years to gain it. These gains must not be put at risk by failure to maintain clinical competence and demonstrate high standards of care. When the Regulated Health Professions Act was proclaimed and received Royal Assent in the Ontario Legislature in 1993, it required, by 1997, a Quality Assurance Committee to be established and charged with implementing competence-quality assurance procedures which required nurses to reflect on their clinical practice and their clinical practice and to participate in programs to promote and maintain competence. The research had several phases in which a number of different methods of investigation were used. To some extent the project phases followed the usual linear progression and, to some extent, they were interactive. The work began with a survey by mailed questionnaire and early analysis of the questionnaire findings. Then an interview schedule was designed and telephone interviews were held. The interview findings were used to reconsider the observations made from the evidence of the initial survey analysis, amplifying initial explanations and conclusions. The clinical testing was then carried out---sometimes after an interview, and sometimes in parallel with the interview. The individual nurses' reported CE activities were linked to the impact of the completed CE on nurse performance as measured in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Thus, the desired interactive effect was achieved whereby the findings of one research activity improved the analysis of the survey results by confirming or drawing into question earlier observations, explanations and conclusions. Reinterviewing of some of the original interviewees in 2005 was completed in an effort to determine the relevance of the issues studied to present day practice of nurses. The purpose of collecting self-reported CE data was to assess common myths about its ubiquity, relevance and utility. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).

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)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,077

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,005
Communication savante0,0060,004
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,397
Écart entre enseignants0,380 · 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'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTSpaceMême sujetNursing education and managementTravaux en français237 207