Clinical leadership development workshop for licenced practical nurses in supportive living in Alberta: An exploratory qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Since 2013, the scope of practice of LPNs in Alberta, Canada has expanded to include leadership in SL that requires that the development of new CL skills be prioritized. To date, few SL work-based educational programs have been devoted to developing CL skills for LPNs. The objective of this study is the assessment of the impact of a brief patient group education intervention (Conversation MapsTM) in people with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Methods: An exploratory qualitative design was used, incorporating multiple data collection methods, including individual and focus group interviews, and a demographic questionnaire. Interview data were analyzed using thematic description.Results and conclusions: Findings suggest that the CLD workshop was effective and feasible in SL practice settings. Data showed that improvement in LPN autonomy and control over decision-making resulted from gaining confidence and feeling empowered, which led to positive change in participants’ CL attitudes. Including other team members, health care aides (HCAs), and management in the CLD workshops also improved team relationships for all.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".