Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced practice nurses positively impact the delivery of healthcare and client outcomes. However, in the past these positions have been seen to have variable value and were often vulnerable during budget cuts. Lack of a clear advanced nursing practice (ANP) framework probably contributed to the compromised effectiveness of these roles and evolution of roles with different titles, scopes of practice and reporting structures. To build the foundation for developing an ANP framework, a task force at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) conducted a literature review related to ANP roles and completed a review of all clinical nursing roles at TOH. In addition, focus groups with nurses and other health professionals elicited ANP perceptions. The ANP framework includes a standardized job description that details competencies under five role components: clinical practice; consultation; research; education; and, leadership. Recommendations for assessment, implementation and evaluation of ANP roles are identified. The process undertaken by our ANP task force proved to be thorough and sound in developing a framework within which to move forward with ANP role implementation throughout TOH. This article, describing the process, may assist other organizations in defining ANP roles to better meet patient needs in changing health care environments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".