MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170519997 · doi:10.1111/jocn.15882

Core competencies of clinical nurse specialists: A comparison across three Nordic countries

2021· article· en· W3170519997 on OpenAlexaff
Krista Jokiniemi, Bibi Hølge‐Hazelton, Gísli Kort Kristófersson, Kirsten Frederiksen, Kelley Kilpatrick, Santtu Mikkonen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec
FundersAcademy of FinlandItä-Suomen Yliopisto
KeywordsNursingCore (optical fiber)Core competencyPsychologyMEDLINEMedicineMedical educationPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To describe and compare the clinical nurse specialist core competency use in Finland, Denmark and Iceland. BACKGROUND: Clinical nurse specialist roles were first developed more than 60 years ago in the United States. Within the Nordic countries, the clinical nurse specialist role emerged around 2000. There is scarcity of clinical nurse specialist competency descriptions outside of North America, and research has been limited to examine or validate established competencies across different countries. DESIGN: A descriptive correlational study. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from May to September 2019. A population sample of clinical nurse specialists in Finland, Denmark and Iceland was recruited. A validated self-report questionnaire of clinical nurse specialist competencies was used. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and the STROBE checklist was used as the reporting guideline. RESULTS: A total sample of 184 clinical nurse specialists, 52 from Finland, 95 from Denmark and 37 from Iceland, participated in the study (response rate = 72%, 35% and 48%, respectively). Overall, clinical nurse specialists utilised the organisational competency most frequently followed by the patient, clinical nursing leadership and scholarship competency. Univariate analysis of variance test between-country effects showed statistically significant difference in patient competency (p = .000) and in organisational competency (p < .05). There were no statistically significant differences between counties in the utilisation of clinical nursing leadership and scholarship competency. CONCLUSION: A small variability was found in the comparison of the clinical nurse specialist use of core competency in the spheres of patient, nursing, organisation and scholarship within three Nordic countries. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The CNS competency scale may be utilised in benchmarking clinical nurse specialist roles and practice within and across countries. The long-term goal for the competency descriptions is to enhance the clinical nurse specialist role clarity, integration and evaluation as well as inform post-graduate education.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.338
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207