MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132880205

Continuing competence in nursing: a study of issues and perceptions

2006· dissertation· W7132880205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Kosco Sirotnik

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Continuing educationPerceptionLifelong learningProfessional responsibilityQuality (philosophy)Professional associationProfessional standardsContinuing professional development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the history of nursing's professional evolution, its practitioners have remained committed to professional accountability, responsibility for the need to maintain competence through continuing education, lifelong learning, and to the quality and rigor of their educational preparation in undergraduate and graduate programs. In broad terms, the purpose of this thesis was to examine the opinions and concerns of a sample of RNs and RPNs of the changes implied by the RHPA: record their recent and current activities taken to accommodate the continuing competency expectation; identify the different patterns and settings of these CE activities in relation to respondents' work responsibilities; assess their outcome in terms of the impact on quality of care; and demonstrate a measurement device of practical use for monitoring the competency of nurses. The monitoring of practice and ensuring quality care is important for nursing on two counts: (1) for the protection of the public and the creation of trust and confidence between patient and nurse which is an important factor in promoting patient recovery and maintaining health; and also, (2) for members of the profession itself, in order to foster confidence in the caliber of their work and professional judgements. This responsibility represents the transfer of professional power, and the recognition of professional expertise and status to an occupational group that has struggled for many years to gain it. These gains must not be put at risk by failure to maintain clinical competence and demonstrate high standards of care. When the Regulated Health Professions Act was proclaimed and received Royal Assent in the Ontario Legislature in 1993, it required, by 1997, a Quality Assurance Committee to be established and charged with implementing competence-quality assurance procedures which required nurses to reflect on their clinical practice and their clinical practice and to participate in programs to promote and maintain competence. The research had several phases in which a number of different methods of investigation were used. To some extent the project phases followed the usual linear progression and, to some extent, they were interactive. The work began with a survey by mailed questionnaire and early analysis of the questionnaire findings. Then an interview schedule was designed and telephone interviews were held. The interview findings were used to reconsider the observations made from the evidence of the initial survey analysis, amplifying initial explanations and conclusions. The clinical testing was then carried out---sometimes after an interview, and sometimes in parallel with the interview. The individual nurses' reported CE activities were linked to the impact of the completed CE on nurse performance as measured in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Thus, the desired interactive effect was achieved whereby the findings of one research activity improved the analysis of the survey results by confirming or drawing into question earlier observations, explanations and conclusions. Reinterviewing of some of the original interviewees in 2005 was completed in an effort to determine the relevance of the issues studied to present day practice of nurses. The purpose of collecting self-reported CE data was to assess common myths about its ubiquity, relevance and utility. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicNursing education and management→French-language works237,207→