Leveraging technology to prepare for a successful Magnet® virtual site visit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnet Site Visits are part of the comprehensive review process for organizations seeking the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s (ANCC) prestigious Magnet® recognition for nursing excellence. In 2021, the ANCC’s Magnet Recognition Program® began offering the option for an onsite or Virtual Site Visit (VSV) for domestic and international organizations. These visits are the culmination of years of work that showcase the best in nursing practice and interprofessional collaboration. Chief Nursing Officers (CNOs) and Magnet Program Directors (MPDs) collaborate to strategically plan these visits. This article will describe a Magnet® recognized community hospital’s preparation for a VSV during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will include development of partnerships with Information Technology Specialists, planning and logistics for meetings, development and implementation of a comprehensive education plan, and the overall orchestration of a VSV. Strategies will address the engagement of nurses and leaders amidst the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. With strategic planning, effective change management, and the adoption of technology, MPDs may gain confidence to facilitate a Magnet Site Visit virtually or in-person.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".