PubMed · 7804910
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
N C De. 1995-01-01. Nurse practitioners and physicians: whose views does CMAJ represent?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7804910/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Health systems worldwide face persistent health workers challenges including nursing shortages, workforce strain, and inequities. In Canada, these challenges have prompted renewed national and provincial reforms to strengthen recruitment, retention, leadership, and sustainability. This paper compares nursing workforce policy directions across Canada, and international jurisdictions to inform policy and planning. METHODS: A cross-country comparative analysis of policies building on a comprehensive national funded review that included an umbrella review of 69 systematic reviews, a comparative policy review of nursing workforce strategies in five jurisdictions, and validation through national horizon-scanning and policy dialogues (n >100). Evidence was analyzed across system, organizational, and individual levels. RESULTS: At the system level, international jurisdictions demonstrate comprehensive, legislated approaches integrating data, governance, and multi-year funding have advanced key nursing strategies. In Canada, the advances show the importance of strategies to have national and provincial/territorial alignment emphasizing leadership, flexibility, and inclusion as key levers. Organizational and individual-level reforms such as mentorship, leadership development, and wellness initiatives are expanding but remain variably evaluated. Experts identified national workforce data strategies and policy integration with embedded evaluation as key enablers to inform scalability and sustainability of implemented strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Canada's nursing workforce reforms are advancing toward coordinated, equity-driven, and evidence-informed strategies. Continued investment in evaluation, leadership, and national integrated data systems along with integrating nursing workforce planning within broader intersectoral planning will consolidate these gains and position Canada as an international leader in sustainable nursing workforce policy.
CONTEXT: Clinician-educators have concerns about their ability to be promoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees. OBJECTIVE: To discover the criteria and methods that medical school promotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinician-educators. METHODS: In June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chairpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: Of 142 schools surveyed, 115 (81%) responded; 45% of respondents had a clinician-educator promotion track. On a scale from 1 (minimally important) to 7 (extremely important), the mean importance ratings of aspects of clinician-educators' performance were the following: teaching skills (6.3), clinical skills (5.8), mentoring (5.7), academic administration (5.3), developing educational programs (5.3), nonresearch scholarship (5.1), clinical research (4.8), service coordination (4.7), and education research (4.5). Methods to evaluate each aspect of performance were rated by respondents for importance and frequency of use. The 4 most important methods for evaluating teaching were awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching portfolio; 70% or more of schools used these frequently or always. The 4 most important methods of evaluating clinical skills were peer evaluation, awards, trainee evaluation, and objective measures, which were used frequently or always by 78%, 65%, 58%, and 29% of schools, respectively. Clinician-educators were expected to have fewer peer-reviewed publications to be promoted than investigators (5.7 vs 10.6, P<.001). Schools with separate clinician-educator tracks differed little in survey responses from schools without such tracks. CONCLUSION: Most, but not all, promotion committees now assign high importance to the special contributions of clinician-educators and use a variety of methods to assess these, regardless of whether they have a separate clinician-educator promotion track.