Exploring a Theoretical Foundation for the Professional Practice Leader Role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional practice leader (PPL) roles have been a common part of the healthcare Landscape for several years, yet the manner in which the role is operationalized varies significantly. This variability leads to ambiguity about the role, its purpose and the value added to the profession, the organization and the healthcare system. Some ambiguity may be due to the lack of a theoretical framework as a foundation for the role. In this climate of evidence-based practice, nursing leaders must demonstrate the rationale for innovations such as the PPL role. The focus of this paper will be to contextualize the PPL role within Kanter's Theory of Structural Empowerment in order to provide a common language for the various stages of evolution of the PPL role (i.e., design, implementation and evaluation). A content analysis of existing PPL role descriptions in Ontario will be used to demonstrate the applicability of Kanter's theory to the PPL role. This paper will be of interest to nursing Leaders and professional practice leaders as an example of how theory can provide direction and support to the operationalization of professional practice roles, functions and outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".