Multicentre implementation of a nursing competency framework at a provincial scale: A qualitative description of facilitators and barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Nurses are responsible for engaging in continuing professional development throughout their careers. This implies that they use tools such as competency frameworks to assess their level of development, identify their learning needs, and plan actions to achieve their learning goals. Although multiple competency frameworks and guidelines for their development have been proposed, the literature on their implementation in clinical settings is sparser. If the complexity of practice creates a need for context-sensitive competency frameworks, their implementation may also be subject to various facilitators and barriers. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To document the facilitators and barriers to implementing a nursing competency framework on a provincial scale. METHODS: This multicentre study was part of a provincial project to implement a nursing competency framework in Quebec, Canada, using a three-step process based on evidence from implementation science. Nurses' participation consisted in the self-assessment of their competencies using the framework. For this qualitative descriptive study, 58 stakeholders from 12 organizations involved in the first wave of implementation participated in group interviews to discuss their experience with the implementation process and their perceptions of facilitators and barriers. Data were subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of the data yielded five themes: finding the 'right unit' despite an unfavourable context; taking and protecting time for self-assessment; creating value around competency assessment; bringing the project as close to the nurses as possible; making the framework accessible. CONCLUSION: This study was one of the first to document the large-scale, multi-site implementation of a nursing competency framework in clinical settings. This project represented a unique challenge because it involved two crucial changes: adopting a competency-based approach focused on educational outcomes and accountability to the public and valorizing a learning culture where nurses become active stakeholders in their continuing professional development.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".