MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

WS-3 The role of the ACP facilitator: The importance of achieving and maintaining competence

2015· article· en· W2412975501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Briggs, B Hammes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorCertificationCompetence (human resources)Medical educationNursingPsychologyKnowledge managementMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The introduction of the advance care planning (ACP) facilitator, as a new and emerging role for the healthcare setting, was first introduced in 1993 in La Crosse, Wisconsin. ACP Facilitators are typically non-physicians/providers who have clinical roles such as nurses and social workers, but also can include non-clinicians, such as chaplains, members of faith ministries, or other community volunteers. The role of the ACP Facilitator has expanded across the USA and to other parts of the world like Australia, Singapore, and parts of Europe and Canada. ACP facilitators provide a valuable service for individuals and their families, promoting ACP conversations as a component of quality care. However, there are many questions and concerns about how non-physicians can provide this ACP service. What training should be provided? What are the core competencies of the role? How is initial competency achieved? How is competence maintained? What standards exist to guide the development of competency based education? What difference do certification programs make? Aim In this workshop, the presenters will offer a definition of the role, responsibilities, and competencies of the ACP Facilitator. Discussion The Respecting Choices® approach to designing effective certification programs for ACP Facilitators will be explored as a critical component of ensuring competence in fulfilling their responsibilities. This standardised approach to certification successfully enables non-physicians to provide a reliable ACP service. The presenters will also discuss the importance of facilitator certification for different stages of illness; clarifying the need for specific skills and competencies when facilitating ACP conversations for individuals with chronic illness, or those who are approaching the last years of life. Strategies to achieve and maintain competence in the role of the ACP Facilitator will be discussed. Lastly, the presenters will provide evidence of the outcomes that result from the Respecting Choices approach to ACP Facilitator certification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→