MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971895953 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031504

Evidence characterising skills, competencies and policies in advanced practice critical care nursing in Europe: a scoping review protocol

2019· review· en· W2971895953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gudrun Kaldan, Sara Nordentoft, Suzanne Forsyth Herling, Anders Larsen, Thordis Thomsen, Ingrid Egerod

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersErasmus+
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)NursingMedical educationHealth careAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The management of critically ill patients is challenged by increasing population age and prevalence of comorbid diseases. High-quality intensive care nursing practice is imperative to accommodate these issues. The roles of the nurse practitioner (NP) and the acute care NP have existed for decades in the USA, Canada and Australia but are still evolving in Europe. Some European countries have introduced the advanced practice nurse (APN), but the current standard of the advanced level of nursing is variable and consensus regarding the framework, role and definition is lacking. Literature and evidence are sparse as well. Identification of skills and competencies required for the APN is warranted. Mapping skills and competencies will enable future educational harmonisation and facilitate mobility of the advanced-level intensive care nursing workforce across Europe. The aim of our scoping review is to identify literature describing skills, competencies and policies characterising advanced nursing practice in intensive care across Europe. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will apply a five-stage scoping review methodology with a comprehensive systematic literature search as outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. In collaboration with a research librarian, we will search nine interdisciplinary databases and grey literature for publications originating in European countries in 1992-2018. Using a two-stage screening process with Covidence to remove duplicates, we will first scan the title and abstract and then perform full-text review to determine the eligibility of the papers. Qualitative content analysis will be used to chart the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study is a part of the European Union-funded INACTIC project (International Nursing Advanced Competency-based Training for Intensive Care) with the overall aim of developing a common European curriculum for advanced practice critical care nursing. Results from this scoping review mapping the evidence of APNs in Europe will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.414
GPT teacher head0.685
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207