Characteristics of nursing educators' professional competency standards: A scoping review

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Nurse Education in Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-15 DOI:10.1016/j.nepr.2024.104130
{"title":"Characteristics of nursing educators' professional competency standards: A scoping review","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.nepr.2024.104130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To map the characteristics of nursing educators' competency standards for practice from the existing literature, examine the evidence and identify commonalities and differences.</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p>Many countries or regions have produced nursing educator standards, however, there is no common set of standards or competencies used globally. Mapping these nursing educator standards should identify a common set of standards that can be applied across any nursing educator practice setting.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>The review was conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and followed an <em>a priori</em> protocol.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive search of studies or guidelines (2001–2022) was undertaken to identify specific nursing educator competencies from any practice setting and in any language. Preceptorship and mentorship studies were excluded from the search terms. Databases searched for relevant records and guidelines were CINAHL, ERIC, Medline (Ovid), Pubmed, Scopus, Google and targeted websites. After screening and selection, relevant data were extracted and summarized using an extraction guide. Characteristics of the reports were identified and all three levels of competency statements were mapped against commonly occurring categories derived from the data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>1145 evidence records were screened after removal of duplicates with 14 records included in the review. The included evidence sources were from various nursing educator practice settings and educator roles. All evidence sources had at least two levels of competency statements and 16 competency categories were identified. Common categories in the first two competency levels were: leadership and management; research and scholarship; professional values and professional development; and facilitating learning. Statements related to learner evaluation were also common in the level 2 competencies. Level 3 competencies were included in seven evidence sources and most of the sources included almost all categories. Low-occurring statements at all levels were in the ‘Nursing skills’ and ‘Decision-making/strategic planning” categories.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Common characteristics and categories were found between different evidence sources in this review. The most common competency review categories included leadership and management, professional development and facilitating learning. Few decision-making competencies were identified from the evidence sources. These results can inform educators and managers in developing globally-based nursing educator competencies, performance management tools and job descriptions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48715,"journal":{"name":"Nurse Education in Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nurse Education in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471595324002592","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

To map the characteristics of nursing educators' competency standards for practice from the existing literature, examine the evidence and identify commonalities and differences.

Background

Many countries or regions have produced nursing educator standards, however, there is no common set of standards or competencies used globally. Mapping these nursing educator standards should identify a common set of standards that can be applied across any nursing educator practice setting.

Design

The review was conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and followed an a priori protocol.

Methods

A comprehensive search of studies or guidelines (2001–2022) was undertaken to identify specific nursing educator competencies from any practice setting and in any language. Preceptorship and mentorship studies were excluded from the search terms. Databases searched for relevant records and guidelines were CINAHL, ERIC, Medline (Ovid), Pubmed, Scopus, Google and targeted websites. After screening and selection, relevant data were extracted and summarized using an extraction guide. Characteristics of the reports were identified and all three levels of competency statements were mapped against commonly occurring categories derived from the data.

Results

1145 evidence records were screened after removal of duplicates with 14 records included in the review. The included evidence sources were from various nursing educator practice settings and educator roles. All evidence sources had at least two levels of competency statements and 16 competency categories were identified. Common categories in the first two competency levels were: leadership and management; research and scholarship; professional values and professional development; and facilitating learning. Statements related to learner evaluation were also common in the level 2 competencies. Level 3 competencies were included in seven evidence sources and most of the sources included almost all categories. Low-occurring statements at all levels were in the ‘Nursing skills’ and ‘Decision-making/strategic planning” categories.

Conclusions

Common characteristics and categories were found between different evidence sources in this review. The most common competency review categories included leadership and management, professional development and facilitating learning. Few decision-making competencies were identified from the evidence sources. These results can inform educators and managers in developing globally-based nursing educator competencies, performance management tools and job descriptions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
护理教育者专业能力标准的特点:范围审查
背景许多国家或地区都制定了护理教育者标准,但目前还没有一套全球通用的标准或能力。方法对研究或指南(2001-2022 年)进行全面检索,以确定任何实践环境和任何语言的具体护理教育者能力。搜索条件不包括戒律和导师研究。搜索相关记录和指南的数据库包括 CINAHL、ERIC、Medline (Ovid)、Pubmed、Scopus、Google 和目标网站。经过筛选后,使用提取指南对相关数据进行提取和汇总。确定了报告的特征,并将所有三个级别的能力声明与数据中常见的类别进行了映射。结果 1145 条证据记录在去除重复内容后被筛选出来,其中 14 条记录被纳入综述。纳入的证据来源来自不同的护理教育者实践环境和教育者角色。所有证据来源都至少有两级能力陈述,并确定了 16 个能力类别。前两个能力等级的共同类别是:领导与管理;研究与学术;专业价值与专业发展;以及促进学习。与学习者评价有关的陈述在第二级能力中也很常见。三级能力包含在七个证据来源中,大多数来源几乎包含了所有类别。在所有级别中,"护理技能 "和 "决策/战略规划 "类别中的陈述出现率较低。最常见的能力审查类别包括领导与管理、专业发展和促进学习。从证据来源中确定的决策能力很少。这些结果可为教育者和管理者提供信息,帮助他们开发基于全球的护理教育者能力、绩效管理工具和工作描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
9.40%
发文量
180
审稿时长
51 days
期刊介绍: Nurse Education in Practice enables lecturers and practitioners to both share and disseminate evidence that demonstrates the actual practice of education as it is experienced in the realities of their respective work environments. It is supportive of new authors and will be at the forefront in publishing individual and collaborative papers that demonstrate the link between education and practice.
期刊最新文献
“Removing the home court advantage”: A qualitative evaluation of LEGO® as an interprofessional simulation icebreaker for midwifery and medical students Does being involved in a research project enhance the postgraduate taught student experience: A qualitative research case study Investigating clinical decision-making in bleeding complications among nursing students: A longitudinal mixed-methods study Simulation as a method in a supervision course, experiences of midwives and specialist nurses: A qualitative study Characteristics of nursing educators' professional competency standards: A scoping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1