<i>Gaining Entry-level Clinical Competence</i>Outside of the Acute Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, an emphasis has been placed on dietetic interns' attainment of entry-level clinical competence in acute care facilities. The perceived risks and benefits of acquiring entry-level clinical competence within long-term and acute care clinical environments were examined. The study included a purposive sample of recent graduates and dietitians (n=14) involved in an integrated internship program. Study subjects participated in in-depth individual interviews. Data were thematically analyzed with the support of data management software QSR N6. Perceived risks and benefits were associated with receiving clinical training exclusively in either environment; risks in one area surfaced as benefits in the other. Themes that emerged included philosophy of care, approach to practice, working environment, depth and breadth of experience, relationships (both client and professional), practice outcomes, employment opportunities, and attitude. Entry-level clinical competence is achievable in both acute and long-term care environments; however, attention must be paid to identified risks. Interns who consider gaining clinical competence exclusively in one area can reduce risks and better position themselves for employment in either practice area by incorporating an affiliation in the other area into their internship program.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".