MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248746249 · doi:10.30770/2572-1852-96.1.31

State Member Board Briefs

2010· article· en· W4248746249 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Regulation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMember stateState (computer science)Member statesComputer scienceBusinessEuropean unionAlgorithmInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Colorado State Board of Nursing and the Colorado Medical Board recently began implementing new complementary rules for advanced practice nurses (APNs) with prescriptive authority. These new rules were enacted as part of Senate Bill 09-239 and became effective July 1, 2010.The new requirements, which are intended to clarify prescribing responsibilities, will affect currently licensed advanced practice nurses with prescriptive authority as well as new applicants for prescriptive authority.Under the new requirements, a collaborative agreement between an advanced practice nurse with prescriptive authority and a physician is no longer required. An “Articulated Plan for Safe Prescribing” is required instead.An articulated plan does not require an ongoing involvement of a physician, as the former collaborative agreement did.Under the new requirements, APNs who wish to obtain prescriptive authority are required to:For specific information regarding the role of the physician in the precepting, mentoring and development of the APN's Articulated Plan to obtain prescriptive authority, visit http://www.dora.state.co.us/medical/advancedpractice.htmSource: Colorado State Medical Board website, June 2010The Georgia Composite Medical Board voted earlier this year to use the list titled “Medical Schools Recognized by the Medical Board of California” as its official reference for approval of medical schools located outside the United States and Canada.Graduates of the schools contained in this list are required to complete one year of postgraduate training in a program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).Graduates attending schools not listed in the Medical Schools Recognized by the Medical Board of California must complete three years of postgraduate training in a program accredited by the ACGME. The list Georgia is now using can be viewed online at: http://www.mbc.ca.gov/applicant/schools.htmlSource: “New IMG Policy,” Georgia Composite Medical Board website, June 2010The North Carolina Medical Board has established new standards for physicians supervising registered polysomnographic technologists (RPSGTs), also known as “sleep techs.”In 2009 the North Carolina General Assembly passed into law “The Polysomnography Practice Act,” (S.L. 2009-434), which regulates the practice of RPSGTs, who perform and assist in interpreting sleep studies to aid physicians in the diagnosis of sleep disorders.The Assembly then tasked the North Carolina Medical Board with identifying standards for physicians supervising RPSGTs with the goal of improving the quality and safety of sleep studies. The Medical Board convened a work group to establish those standards, which were adopted earlier this year.The new law mandates that the North Carolina Medical Board maintain a registry of RPSGTs that are registered by the Board of Registered Polysomnographic Technologists (BRPT). The Medical Board will now collect the name, full address, date of registration with the BRPT, and proof of registration for RPSGTs in the state. The Medical Board will not be responsible for determining whether registration of a practitioner is appropriate, and it will not discipline RPSGTs for substandard practice. Instead the Board merely acts as the repository for the registry information.Starting in 2012, RPSGTs cannot practice in North Carolina unless they are a part of the registry and meet a variety of other requirements.North Carolina's new law requires that RPSGTs work under the indirect supervision of a physician. The supervising physician is required to have policies and procedures in place for the safe and appropriate completion of RPSGT services and must be readily available to render assistance if needed, but on-site supervision is not required.The law also mandates that sleep studies may only be performed in a hospital, standalone sleep laboratory or sleep center, or in a patient's home. The law permits other licensed or registered health care professionals or those working under the supervision of another health care professional to perform sleep studies; however, only those individuals registered with the Medical Board may use the designation “RPSGT.” Violation of the new law is a Class I misdemeanor.The Medical Board will develop more detailed procedures for RPSGTs who must register under the Act closer to the January 2012 implementation deadline. For more information, visit the Board's website at www.ncmedboard.org.Source: North Carolina State Medical Board website, June 2010The West Virginia Board of Medicine has adopted a new position statement: Guidelines for Physicians in Collaborative Relationships with Advanced Nurse Practitioners or Certified Nurse Midwives. The statement provides guidance to physicians clarifying their responsibilities when entering into collaborative work relationships with advanced nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives.The West Virginia position statement stipulates that physicians entering into such relationships must be fully licensed in West Virginia without practice restrictions or limitations, and that they must create written collaborative agreements with nurses and midwives they work with.Written collaborative agreements must include a variety of specific provisions outlined in the position statement.Physicians who fail to adhere to the new guidelines established in the position statement may be subject to discipline by the Board. To learn more, visit the West Virginia Board of Medicine website at http://www.wvbom.wv.gov/Source: West Virginia Board of Medicine Policy Statement: “Guidelines for Physicians in Collaborative Relationships with Advanced Nurse Practitioners or Certified Nurse Midwives,” May 2010

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.418 · 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