Evaluation of an Advanced Health Assessment Course for Acute Care Nurse Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (ACNP) role is being implemented in many centres in Canada. Administrators need to be aware there are very few universities in Canada that prepare ACNPs for advanced health assessment. Therefore, a need may exist for continuing education in the work environment. The ACNPs in London, Ontario recognized such a need, and developed and implemented an Advanced Health Assessment Course using available resources, and administrators supported participation in the course. A pre-post course evaluation based on Bandura's Self-Efficacy theory (1997) was performed. From pre-test to post-test there were significant increases in: (a) the use of health assessement skills; (b) confidence in performing these skills; and (c) confidence in recognizing abnormalities on health assessment. The reasons most often cited for infrequent skill use were "inappropriate to clinical setting" and "used only if problem suspected". The majority of participants agreed that the course met their needs. Implications for practice include administrative support for continuing education at other centres to enhance health assessment skills of ACNPs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".