The Emergence of Forensic Nursing and Advanced Nursing Practice in Switzerland
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
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The objectives of this article were to systematically describe and examine the novel roles and responsibilities assumed by nurses in a forensic consultation for victims of violence at a University Hospital in French-speaking Switzerland. Utilizing a case study methodology, information was collected from two main sources: (a) discussion groups with nurses and forensic pathologists and (b) a review of procedures and protocols. Following a critical content analysis, the roles and responsibilities of the forensic nurses were described and compared with the seven core competencies of advanced nursing practice as outlined by Hamric, Spross, and Hanson (2009). RESULTS: Advanced nursing practice competencies noted in the analysis included "direct clinical practice," "coaching and guidance," and "collaboration." The role of the nurse in terms of "consultation," "leadership," "ethics," and "research" was less evident in the analysis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: New forms of nursing are indeed practiced in the forensic clinical setting, and our findings suggest that nursing practice in this domain is following the footprints of an advanced nursing practice model. Further reflections are required to determine whether the role of the forensic nurse in Switzerland should be developed as a clinical nurse specialist or that of a nurse practitioner.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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