The Regulatory Amalgamation for Nursing and Midwifery in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 1 September 2020, Canada's first combined nursing-midwifery regulator was created with the amalgamation of the separate nurse and midwife regulators in British Columbia (BC). The highly critical Cayton Report on health profession regulation, the previous experience of amalgamating nursing regulators in BC, and a broader call for more efficient and effective regulation were factors influencing this reform. The goals of the reform were to increase regulatory efficiency (by maximizing economies of scale) and effectiveness (by ensuring adequate resources to meet the public interest mandate) and, for the regulators, to control the pace and progress of the amalgamation ahead of impending government dictate. These goals of the regulators' proposal to amalgamate clearly fit with the BC government's vision for modernizing health profession regulation. To implement the amalgamation, the BC government released an Order in Council on 8 June 2020 that amended various regulations under BC's Health Professions Act and confirmed the September 1 date of amalgamation. There is currently no clearly articulated evaluation plan for this reform; however, evaluating regulatory efficiency and effectiveness in the interests of the public is likely to be a focus moving forward for both regulators and governments. Le premier organisme de réglementation combiné des soins infirmiers et de la profession de sage-femme au Canada a été résulté le 1er septembre 2020 de la fusion des organismes distincts de réglementation des soins infirmiers et de la profession de sage-femme en Colombie-Britannique. Les facteurs ayant influencé cette réforme ont été le très critique rapport Cayton sur la réglementation des professions de santé, l’expérience antérieure de la fusion des organismes de réglementation des soins infirmiers en Colombie-Britannique et un courant général en faveur d’une réglementation plus efficiente et efficace. Les objectifs de la réforme étaient d’accroître l’efficacité réglementaire (en maximisant les économies d’échelle) et l’efficience (en garantissant des ressources adéquates pour répondre au mandat d’intérêt public) et, pour les régulateurs, de contrôler le rythme et la progression de la fusion avant l’imminence d’un diktat gouvernemental. Ces objectifs de la proposition de fusion des organismes de réglementation correspondent clairement à la vision du gouvernement de la Colombie-Britannique en matière de modernisation de la réglementation des professions de santé. Pour mettre en œuvre la fusion, le gouvernement de la Colombie-Britannique a publié le 8 juin 2020 un décret modifiant divers règlements en vertu de la Health Professions Act de la Colombie-Britannique et confirmant la date du 1er septembre pour la fusion. Il n’existe actuellement aucun plan d’évaluation clairement formulé pour cette réforme; toutefois, l’évaluation de l’efficacité et de l’efficience de la réglementation dans l’intérêt du public sera probablement un point central à l’avenir, tant pour les régulateurs que pour les gouvernements.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".