An Exploration of the Impact of a Mandatory Quality Assurance Program on the Staff Nurse's Commitment to Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored experiences in relation to the impact of the College of Nurses of Ontario's (CNO's) mandatory Quality Assurance (QA) program on registered nurses (RNs) working in a clinical setting of an acute care hospital. A qualitative descriptive research design was used and data collection was done in 2 stages. First, a survey with open-ended questions was given to 45 nurses. Second, 8 respondents from the survey were interviewed using a semistructured format. Data were obtained from 2 groups-diploma-prepared and post diploma-prepared RNs. Findings demonstrated that the CNO's QA program had varying influences on the RNs ' learning paths, and these differences appeared to be related to the educational background of the individual. The diploma-prepared nurses reported that their commitment to professional development was influenced by their level of internal motivation, the pressures associated with time, and the need for a strong external motivator, namely the obligation ofmanagement to conduct formal performance appraisals. They further reported that the QA program played a part in positively altering
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".