THE HYPERTENSION CANADA PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM: A NOVEL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The uptake of clinical practice guidelines into practice is poor for many chronic conditions, including hypertension. What is missing is an implementation strategy for incorporating guidelines into primary care practice. Herein, we describe the development of the Hypertension Canada Professional Certification Program (HC-PCP), a novel approach to guidelines implementation. Design and method: First, we identified 15 competencies believed to be important for primary care professionals to master when providing hypertension care. These competencies were surveyed for consensus by front-line clinicians through the Hypertension Canada e-newsletter. Clinicians were asked to rank the importance (on a Likert scale from 1 = not important to 5 = very important) of each competency for a primary care provider when undertaking a certification in hypertension management. Results: A total of 121 clinicians responded to the survey. Of these, 38% were pharmacists, 31.4% were registered nurses, 10.7% were physicians, and 7% were nurse practitioners. There was at least one respondent from each Canadian province and territory, except for the Northwest Territories. All 15 competencies received a mean rank of at least 4. The competencies with the lowest rank was “Demonstrates a sound knowledge of the epidemiology of hypertension” (mean 4.07 (SD 0.85)) and the highest was “Ability to screen and identify hypertension” (mean 4.83 (SD 0.04)). We then used these competencies to develop an online certification program, the HC-PCP. Some features include regular quizzes, submission of a video outlining the learner's blood pressure measurement technique, and submission of 3 patient cases for expert review. The program was launched recently: www.hypertension.ca/professional-certification-program/. Conclusions: We have developed a novel online hypertension certification program based upon the Hypertension Canada guidelines. The HC-PCP has been launched to pharmacists first, and is also being tested in a stepped wedge randomized trial called RxPATH (www.epicore.ualberta.ca/home/rxpath/).
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 | 0.027 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".