Development of Nurse Practitioner Competencies for Advance Care Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the development of nurse practitioner (NP) competencies for advance care planning. Nurse practitioners are well positioned to implement advance care planning with their patients; however, very few patients have an advance care plan. A modified Delphi method was used to engage NPs in achieving consensus for advance care planning competencies. In round 1, draft competencies were developed from the findings of a survey of NP beliefs, knowledge, and level of implementation of advance care planning. In round 2, 29 NPs participated in the evaluation of the draft competencies and their components. Revisions were made, and a final round was conducted where 15 of the original NP participants confirmed their consensus with the final document. The final document includes 4 competencies, each with several elements: (1) Clinical Practice, (2) Consultation and Communication, (3) Advocacy, and (4) Therapeutic Management. Advance care planning competencies will provide NPs with a guide that can be used to ensure that they are able to clearly identify their distinct role in advance care planning. These competencies may inform the integration of advance care planning in a variety of health care settings and with other health care providers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".