PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15129515

Certification: perspectives on competency assurance.

Abstract

As registered professional nurses, we have an obligation to our patients to assure we are practicing at a competent level. Nurse managers and administrators must show to the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organization (JCAHO) that the nurses providing care in their facility are competent. Assessing competency is not a simple task, and there is no 1 correct answer or definition of competence or competency assessment. Some of the methods available for competency assessment are self-assessment models, multiple choice examinations used for certification and licensure, oral or essay examinations, and practice or patient simulations. The Certification Board Perioperative Nursing (CBPN) recognizes that learning and competency maintenance is accomplished in a variety of ways, and that learning is achieved through successful participation in various professional activities. Becoming certified and remaining certified, or completion of the Professional Perioperative Portfolio are ways for nurses to continue to show competency in perioperative nursing. Research is vital to validate that certification does indeed show competency. The research committee of CBPN and the Nurse Credentialing Research Coalition (NCRC) are committed to quantify not only the value of the credential but to examine the personal, professional, and practice outcomes of certified nurses across the country. It is hoped that the current research being conducted will eventually allow concerned parties to have assurance that the certified professional registered nurse is indeed a competent registered nurse.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M O'Neale, S Kurtz. 2001. Certification: perspectives on competency assurance.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15129515/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗