A Delphi Approach to Developing a Core Competency Framework for Family Practice Registered Nurses in Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the results of a Delphi panel process to gain consensus on a role description and competency framework for family practice registered nurses (FP-RNs) in Ontario. Based on the findings from interviews and focus groups with family practice registered nurses and their inter-professional colleagues throughout Ontario, a core competency framework for FP-RNs emerged consisting of six distinct roles - Professional, Expert, Communicator, Synergist, Health Educator and Lifelong Learner - with accompanying enabling competency statements. This framework was refined and validated by a panel of experts from various nursing and family medicine associations and organizations through a Delphi consensus process. This core competency framework for FP-RNs was developed as a stepping stone for clarifying this very important and poorly understood role in family practice. As a result of this research, we expect a greater acknowledgement of the contributions and expertise of the FP-RN as well as the need to celebrate and profile this role. This work has already led to the establishment of a network of stakeholders from nursing organizations in Ontario who are considering opportunities to move the development and use of the competency framework forward.
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it