Consortium approach for nurse practitioner education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995, a 10-university consortium approach to deliver a post-baccalaureate primary care nurse practitioner programme funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health was launched throughout Ontario, Canada. A combination of traditional and distance teaching methods, in English and French, were used. A 5-year research project was initiated to evaluate the entire programme, the effect of nurse practitioners on patient and health-care system outcomes and examine practice patterns. Participants included deans and directors (n = 10), regional co-ordinators (n = 5) and course developers, some of whom were also course professors (n = 8). This article is a report of the evaluation of the consortium programme after the first year from the perspective of groups involved in implementation and delivery. Results of qualitative analyses of participant perceptions from researcher-led focus groups and asynchronous electronic interviews provided the framework for the evaluation, and revealed the rationale for the consortium method, strengths, limitations and recommendations. Sharing ideas, resources and delivery and increased student access in remote areas were perceived as positive outcomes. Limitations included the short time period to develop programme content, identify and plan for distance education resources, and too little communication between universities and students. Researchers concluded that the consortium approach was effective for nurse practitioner education. Key factors identified for programme planning were communication, resources, curriculum and workload. Included among the recommendations was to allow sufficient time for role and course development before beginning a similar programme.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".