The growing need to provide training in clinical procedures in family nurse practitioner educational programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Family nurse practitioners (FNPs) have a plethora of employment options upon graduation. Besides primary care, many are working in nontraditional settings such as urgent care, emergency departments, retail health, and specialty practices. In many of these settings, practitioners are required to perform procedures. However, more information is needed on the type of settings in which recent FNP graduates are working, the procedures being performed in these settings, and the perceptions of graduates of how prepared they felt to perform these procedures. Family nurse practitioners who completed an FNP program within the previous five years and who attended the 2019 AANP National Conference were invited to participate in a survey to assess their preparation in clinical procedures. Results revealed that more than half of the 198 respondents reported doing incision and drainage of abscesses and laceration repair. Respondents were divided on how they first learned to perform the procedures, with 47% stating that a preceptor demonstrated procedures to them during a clinical practicum experience, 42% stating that they learned on the job after graduation, and 43% reported that their FNP program provided training or simulation activities related to procedures. More than a quarter of respondents reported that they took a class on procedures. In all, 61% reported that they did not feel adequately prepared to perform procedures on graduation. Results indicated that colleges of nursing should ensure that FNP students have opportunities to master the procedures that are frequently performed by FNPs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".