Assessment of the educational competencies for the Hypertension Canada Professional Certification Program (HC-PCP) designed for implementation of hypertension guidelines into primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The uptake of clinical practice guidelines into practice is limited for many chronic conditions, including hypertension. The aim of this study was to ascertain the importance of the educational competencies for the development of the Hypertension Canada Professional Certification Program (HC-PCP) among frontline, primary care professionals (e.g., pharmacists, physicians, nurses). Methods: A group of hypertension experts developed 15 competencies believed to be important for primary care professionals to master when providing hypertension management. These competencies were surveyed for consensus by frontline clinicians through the Hypertension Canada e-newsletter in 2018. Clinicians were asked to rank the importance of each competency for a primary care provider to acquire when undertaking a certification in hypertension management, using a Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). 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 1 respondent from each Canadian province and territory, except for the Northwest Territories. All 15 competencies received a mean rank of at least 4. The competency with the highest ranking was Competency 6: Ability to screen and identify hypertension (mean 4.83 [0.04]). The competencies with the lowest average ranks were Competency 1: Demonstrates a sound knowledge of the epidemiology of hypertension (mean 4.07 [0.85]) and Competency 5: Demonstrates an understanding of the validation process for blood pressure devices (mean 4.15 [0.08]). Conclusions: Clinicians generally ranked all 15 competencies to be of high importance for a provider who is certified in hypertension management to possess. These competencies and the current Hypertension Canada guidelines were used as the foundation for the development of an education program called the Hypertension Canada Professional Certification Program. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".