Professional development and career planning for nurses working in care homes for older people: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A skilled, knowledgeable, and compassionate nurse workforce is pivotal to caring well for older people living in care homes. This requires the provision of continuing professional development and career planning for nurses, which are key also for nurse recruitment and retention. Continuing professional development and career planning strategies and interventions should be evidence-driven. OBJECTIVE: To identify the extent, range and nature of contemporary evidence regarding professional development and career planning for nurses caring for older people living in care homes. METHODS: The methodological framework used was the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was used as the reporting framework. Four databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2021. Results were screened independently by two reviewers using eligibility criteria. Full texts and the reference lists of eligible articles were reviewed. Data were extracted for key elements from the 25 articles included. RESULTS: Of the 25 articles, the majority were authored in the United States (n = 10) and UK (n = 8) with the remaining from Australia (n = 3), Canada (n = 3) and the Netherlands (n = 1). Four articles reported on professional development programmes. Three literature reviews addressed challenges for nurse participation in professional development, experiences of care home nurses as clinical leaders and managers, and leadership. Two expert commentaries reported on the challenges related to professional development and career planning for care home nurses. Sixteen empirical studies investigated a range of topics including: competencies, roles, intention to stay and leave, continuing professional development, and leadership. Key emergent factors that support professional development and career planning were as follows: access to structured learning opportunities addressing knowledge and skills specific to nursing frail older adults, a supportive working environment including adequate staffing, study time and flexible working, and integration of leadership development. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This scoping review has highlighted factors that support and challenge professional development and career planning for nurses working in the care home sector. There remain important gaps in the opportunities for professional development and career planning for care home nurses that warrant attention.
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 | 0.016 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".