Evaluation of a Nurse Practitioner Accreditation Program Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, nurse practitioners (NPs) have been recognized as advanced practice nurses (APNs) for two decades. During this time, the number of NP education programs has increased and transitioned from post-baccalaureate to graduate and post-graduate level. In 2018, the Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing's (CASN) board of directors passed a motion to provide a voluntary NP accreditation program. Three NP programs (one collaborative) volunteered to participate in an accreditation pilot study between 2019 and 2020. As part of quality improvement, a pilot study evaluation involving all NP stakeholders was completed by a post-doctoral nursing fellow who led structured virtual focus groups. These groups focused on the NP accreditation standards and key elements, developed by CASN, as well as the accreditation process. The purpose of the evaluation study was to ensure the accreditation process was relevant, responsive to the needs of the discipline and promoted high-quality NP education. The data was analyzed and synthesized using content analysis. Several areas of improvement were identified to avoid duplication and to provide consistency in communication and collection of accreditation data. The recommendations led to revisions of the accreditation standards, to strengthen them and resulted in the standards and accreditation manual being published earlier than expected. The three NP programs involved in the pilot study received accreditation. The new standards will be utilized in Canada to improve the consistency and quality of NP education programs in Canada and abroad in the coming years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".