DOP028 Second N-ECCO Consensus Statements on the European nursing roles in caring for patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the second Nurse European Crohns and Colitis (N-ECCO) consensus statements document addressing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) nursing across Europe. The over-arching aim of ECCO is to improve the care of patients with IBD through the development of guidelines, education and research. Current evidence is fundamental to enable N-ECCO to meet this progressive aim. This document updates the first N-ECCO consensus statements based on the “ideal” standard of care, provides additional statements and evidence supporting contemporary IBD nursing practice, whilst acknowledging the extensive variety in IBD nursing across Europe. In line with Standard Operating Procedures set out by ECCO, the proposal to update the statements was approved by ECCO’s Governing Board. An international call for N-ECCO members was sent in January 2017; 10 nurses and the current N-ECCO committee of 2017 were selected and divided into four working groups (WG), each responsible for a different section of the consensus document. Each WG performed literature searches using terms consistent with their group statements to enable review of original statements and to add new statements. The consensus process was based on a modified Delphi method. The updated statements document was submitted to an online platform for discussion and for online voting by all national representatives of N-ECCO. 63% of national representatives and the consensus working group voted. A total of 31 statements were generated, in comparison to 25 from the first consensus document. Eighty-three per cent of the statements gained over 90% consensus, suggesting that further online consensus rounds were unnecessary. Statements receiving less than 80% consensus were reviewed and for the second and final voting round, which was held in June 2017, the consensus working group achieved 100% consensus agreement for all 31 statements. The consensus statements were divided into four sections. “Fundamental IBD Nursing”, “Advanced IBD Nursing”, “Advanced IBD nursing care for particular situations”, and “Benefit of an IBD Nurse”. There was a wide range in the level of evidence for IBD-nursing. However, a substantial number of publications were added to support IBD nursing and the benefits of the IBD nurse in this second version of the N-ECCO Consensus statements. The updated consensus statements build upon the orginal document to provide contemporary guidance at local, national and international levels of IBD nursing care. They are intended to inform, inspire, and improve the standards of IBD care, providing evidence for IBD nurses to move from fundamental to advanced care, and to encourage research by IBD nurses. The consensus statements will also work as a base when creating educational programmes for IBD nurses.
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 | 0.032 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.013 |
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".