Bayesian versus frequentist statistical inference for investi gating a one-off cancer cluster reported to a health department

Background The problem of silent multiple comparisons is one of the most difficult statistical problems faced by scientists. It is a particular problem for investigating a one-off cancer cluster reported to a health department because any one of hundreds, or possibly thousands, of neighbourhoods, schools, or workplaces could have reported a cluster, which could have been for any one of several types of cancer or any one of several time periods. Methods This paper contrasts the frequentist approach with a Bayesian approach for dealing with silent multiple comparisons in the context of a one-off cluster reported to a health department. Two published cluster investigations were re-analysed using the Dunn-Sidak method to adjust frequentist p-values and confidence intervals for silent multiple comparisons. Bayesian methods were based on the Gamma distribution. Results Bayesian analysis with non-informative priors produced results similar to the frequentist analysis, and suggested that both clusters represented a statistical excess. In the frequentist framework, the statistical significance of both clusters was extremely sensitive to the number of silent multiple comparisons, which can only ever be a subjective "guesstimate". The Bayesian approach is also subjective: whether there is an apparent statistical excess depends on the specified prior. Conclusion In cluster investigations, the frequentist approach is just as subjective as the Bayesian approach, but the Bayesian approach is less ambitious in that it treats the analysis as a synthesis of data and personal judgements (possibly poor ones), rather than objective reality. Bayesian analysis is (arguably) a useful tool to support complicated decision-making, because it makes the uncertainty associated with silent multiple comparisons explicit.

The development of a clinical learning environment scale

Within nursing, there is a strong demand for high-quality, cost-effective clinical education experiences that facilitate student learning in the clinical setting The clinical learning environment (CLE) is the interactive network of forces within the clinical setting that influence the students'clinical learning outcomes The identification of factors that characterize CLE could lead to strategies that foster the factors most predictive of desirable student learning outcomes and ameliorate those which may have a negative impact on student outcomes The CLE scale is a 23-item instrument with five subscales staff–student relationships, nurse manager commitment, patient relationships, interpersonal relationships, and student satisfaction These factors have strong substantive face validity and construct validity, as determined by confirmatory factor analysis Reliability coefficients range from high (0 85) to marginal (0 63) The CLE scale provides the educator with a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate affectively relevant factors in the CLE, direct resources to areas where improvement may be required, and nurture those areas functioning well It will assist in the application of resources in a cost-effective, efficient, productive manner, and will ensure that the clinical learning experience offers the nursing student the best possible learning outcomes

The core role of the nurse practitioner: practice, professionalism and clinical leadership.

AIM: To draw on empirical evidence to illustrate the core role of nurse practitioners in Australia and New Zealand. BACKGROUND: Enacted legislation provides for mutual recognition of qualifications, including nursing, between New Zealand and Australia. As the nurse practitioner role is relatively new in both countries, there is no consistency in role expectation and hence mutual recognition has not yet been applied to nurse practitioners. A study jointly commissioned by both countries' Regulatory Boards developed information on the core role of the nurse practitioner, to develop shared competency and educational standards. Reporting on this study's process and outcomes provides insights that are relevant both locally and internationally. METHOD: This interpretive study used multiple data sources, including published and grey literature, policy documents, nurse practitioner program curricula and interviews with 15 nurse practitioners from the two countries. Data were analysed according to the appropriate standard for each data type and included both deductive and inductive methods. The data were aggregated thematically according to patterns within and across the interview and material data. FINDINGS: The core role of the nurse practitioner was identified as having three components: dynamic practice, professional efficacy and clinical leadership. Nurse practitioner practice is dynamic and involves the application of high level clinical knowledge and skills in a wide range of contexts. The nurse practitioner demonstrates professional efficacy, enhanced by an extended range of autonomy that includes legislated privileges. The nurse practitioner is a clinical leader with a readiness and an obligation to advocate for their client base and their profession at the systems level of health care. CONCLUSION: A clearly articulated and research informed description of the core role of the nurse practitioner provides the basis for development of educational and practice competency standards. These research findings provide new perspectives to inform the international debate about this extended level of nursing practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings from this research have the potential to achieve a standardised approach and internationally consistent nomenclature for the nurse practitioner role.

The Capability of Nurse Practitioners may be Diminished by the Use of Controlling Protocols

Nurse practitioners will become a vital component of the health workforce because of the growing need to manage chronic illness, to deliver effective primary health services, and to manage workforce challenges effectively. In addition, the role of nurse practitioner is an excellent example of increased workforce flexibility and changes to occupational boundaries. This paper draws on an Australasian research project which defined the core role of nurse practitioners, and identified capability as the component of their level of practice that makes their service most useful. We argue that any tendency to write specific protocols to define the limits of nurse practitioner practice will reduce the efficacy of their contribution. The distinction we wish to make in this paper is between guidelines aiming to support practice, and protocols which aim to control practice.