Development of a competency framework for advanced practice nurses: A co-design process.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to develop a comprehensive competency framework for advanced practice nurses in Belgium. DESIGN: A co-design development process was conducted. METHODS: This study consisted of two consecutive stages (November 2020-December 2021): (1) developing a competency framework for advanced practice nurses in Belgium by the research team, based on literature and (2) group discussions or interviews with and written feedback from key stakeholders. 11 group discussions and seven individual interviews were conducted with various stakeholder groups with a total of 117 participants. RESULTS: A comprehensive competency framework containing 31 key competencies and 120 enabling competencies was developed based on the Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists Competency Framework. These competencies were grouped into seven roles: clinical expert and therapist, organizer of quality care and leader in innovation, professional and clinical leader, collaborator, researcher, communicator and health promoter. CONCLUSION: The developed competency framework has resemblance to other international frameworks. This framework emphasized the independent role of the advanced practice nurse and provided guidance in a clear task division and delegation to other professionals. It can provide a solid foundation for delivering high-quality, patient-centred care by advanced practice nurses in the years to come. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: This competency framework can guide further development of advanced practice nursing education in Belgium and represents a starting point for future evaluation of its feasibility and usability in education and clinical practice. Advanced practice nurses and healthcare managers can also use the framework as an instrument for personal and professional development, performance appraisal, and further alignment of these function profiles in clinical practice. Finally, this framework can inform and guide policymakers towards legal recognition of advanced practice nursing in Belgium and inspire the development of advanced practice nursing profiles in countries where these profiles are still emerging. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? The absence of a detailed competency framework for advanced practice nurses complicates legal recognition, role clarification and implementation in practice in Belgium. A rigorously developed competency framework could clarify which competencies to integrate in future advanced practice nursing education, mentorship programs and practice. What were the main findings? The competency framework outlined seven roles for advanced practice nurses: clinical expert and therapist, organizer of quality care and leader in innovation, professional and clinical leader, collaborator, researcher, communicator, and health promoter. Differentiation from other expert nursing profiles and clinical autonomy of advanced practice nurses were pivotal. Where and on whom will the research have impact? The comprehensive competency framework for advanced practice nurses and the collaborative methodology used can inspire other countries where these profiles are still emerging. The competency framework can be used as an instrument for role clarification, performance appraisals, continuous professional development, and professional (e-)portfolios. The competency framework can guide policymakers when establishing Belgian's legal framework for advanced practice nurses. REPORTING METHOD: The authors have adhered to CONFERD-HP: recommendations for reporting COmpeteNcy FramEwoRk Development in health professions. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution in the design of the study. A patient advisory panel commented on the developed competency framework.

What if your research is suddenly affiliated with a tobacco manufacturing company?

The tobacco industry is accountable for an annual global death toll of approximately 8 million people and cigarette smoking is the foremost risk factor for several types of cancer. In addition, the tobacco industry has a long and controversial history of trying to influence scientific research and of engaging in other morally problematic practices. In September 2021, the respiratory community was alarmed by the takeover of Vectura Group (Vectura) by Philip Morris International. As a reaction to this acquisition, strict measures were imposed by the International Respiratory Societies to prohibit the involvement of Vectura in respiratory research and its participation in societies' activities. International Respiratory Societies argued that Vectura had become part of the tobacco industry due to this takeover and is, therefore, subject to the same rules and restrictions. From a healthcare and historical perspective, the reaction and imposed measures are very understandable. However, for researchers that were already affiliated with Vectura through long-standing agreements and for research that was funded by Vectura, the imposed measures have serious consequences. With this article, we provide an example of these consequences. By reflecting on this issue, we would like to start a conversation regarding the current measures and to encourage the respiratory community to begin thinking of a way to avoid these consequences in the future. In addition, we hope that with this conversation the Respiratory Societies can set an example for other medical societies on how to cope with possible morally tainted affiliations (eg, fast food companies, alcohol manufacturing companies) in the future.

It's Groundhog Day! What Can the History of Science Say About the Crisis in Alzheimer's Disease Research?

For years now, Alzheimer's disease (AD) research has been stuck in a Groundhog-Day scenario: an endless time loop with no breakthrough in sight. Disagreement about the validity of the field's dominant approach, based on the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis, has led to a seemingly unresolvable trench war between proponents and critics. Our paper evaluates the recent scientific literature on AD from a historical and philosophical perspective. We show that AD research is a classic example of the boundary work at play in a field in crisis: both parties deploy historical and philosophical references to illustrate what counts as good and bad science, as proper scientific method and appropriate scientific conduct. We also show that boundary work has proved unable to point a way out of the deadlock and argue that the science system's tools for establishing scientific quality, such as peer review and the grant system, are unlikely to resolve the crisis. Rather, they consolidate the dominant model's position even more. In conclusion, we suggest that some kind of reverse boundary-work is needed that reopens the discussion on the nature of AD, an issue that has never been settled scientifically. Drawing on historical and philosophical work, we make clear that the definition of AD as a biomedical disease for which a cure can be found has consequences, not only for funding opportunities, but also for patients and their lives. A reconsideration of the desirability of these consequences may lead to different choices with respect to research priorities and patient care.

Summary of The History Manifesto.

This essay provides a brief, impartial summary of some main points of The History Manifesto, of the debate among historians that it has engendered, and of its connection to previous debates in and about the history of the sciences.