From competence to capability: a study of nurse practitioners in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to understand the level and scope of practice of the nurse practitioner in Australia and New Zealand further using a capability framework. BACKGROUND: The original study, from which the present paper was developed, sought to identify competency standards for the extended role of the nurse practitioner in Australia and New Zealand. In doing so the researchers became aware that while competencies described many of the characteristics of the nurse practitioner they did not manage to tell the whole story. In a search of the literature, the concept of capability appeared to provide a potentially useful construct to describe the attributes of the nurse practitioner that went beyond competence. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of data obtained from interviews with nurse practitioners working in Australia and New Zealand was undertaken. These data had previously been obtained in a study to identify nurse practitioner competencies. The analysis described in this paper investigated whether or not the components of capability would adequately explain the characteristics of the nurse practitioner. METHODS: Fifteen nurse practitioners were interviewed from Australia and New Zealand. A secondary (deductive) analysis of interview data using capability as a theoretical framework was conducted. RESULTS: The analysis showed that capability and its dimensions is a useful model for describing the advanced level attributes of nurse practitioners. Thus, nurse practitioners described elements of their practice that involved: using their competences in novel and complex situations as well as the familiar; being creative and innovative; knowing how to learn; having a high level of self-efficacy; and working well in teams. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that both competence and capability need to be considered in understanding the complex role of the nurse practitioner. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The dimensions of capability need to be considered in the education and evaluation of nurse practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".