Community of Practice: A Nurse Practitioner Collaborative Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was undertaken with nurse practitioners (NPs) in 2008-2009 to examine post-legislation role development in British Columbia. The authors used a participatory action research approach to engage NPs in social investigation, education and action, and to explore, from the participants' perspective, how collaboration advances NP role integration in primary healthcare. A particular discovery of the study was the Interior Health Authority Community of Practice (CoP) established in collaboration with health leaders and NPs. The purpose of this paper is to report on the CoP and the five characteristics describing this collaborative CoP model, including sanctioned social structure, knowledge exchange network, practice discovery and innovation, generating meaning and value, and power sharing for strategic improvement. The CoP helped NPs to build collegial and collaborative relationships, enhance practice learning and competence, extend and apply new knowledge, enrich professional identities, and shape health organizational policy and politics. Because healthcare research about CoPs is limited, principles of a collaborative CoP model are offered for broader healthcare use. The authors conclude that a collaborative CoP model addresses the internal interests and needs of participating members while attending to the external concerns of the organization, and thus contributes to healthcare improvement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".