护理实践博士-家庭护理师学术项目评价与质量改进。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1097/JXX.0000000000000668
Erin C Donovan, Janice A Holvoet, Kathleen N Hall
{"title":"护理实践博士-家庭护理师学术项目评价与质量改进。","authors":"Erin C Donovan, Janice A Holvoet, Kathleen N Hall","doi":"10.1097/JXX.0000000000000668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education's accreditation standards require nursing programs to demonstrate that students acquire doctoral-level knowledge and competencies beyond that expected at the baccalaureate and/or masters levels. The purpose of this article was to describe a quality improvement (QI) project for Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner (NP) scholarly projects.</p><p><strong>Local problem: </strong>Nurse practitioner faculty inquired about whether students' scholarly projects were of the quality and rigor expected at the doctoral, rather than masters, level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project was conducted as a QI initiative and was designated as such by the institutional review board. Methods were based on Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act QI process model.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Two doctorally prepared nursing faculty evaluated nine doctoral scholarly projects using the Roush DNP-PCAT instrument. This instrument evaluates 16 components, and key elements within each component, for completeness. The DNP-PCAT tool was evaluated for interrater reliability and content validity in an earlier study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Strengths and weaknesses were identified using quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Floor effects were seen in strategic planning, ethical concerns, data collection, results, discussion, and limitations. Qualitative findings identified weaknesses across all 16 components. Findings were similar to the results reported in a prior study. Results were reviewed and action plans were developed to improve the rigor of scholarly projects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The nursing faculty plan to incorporate routine evaluation of scholarly projects into their program evaluation. Other NP programs may benefit from instituting a similar process.</p>","PeriodicalId":48812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation and quality improvement of Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner scholarly projects.\",\"authors\":\"Erin C Donovan, Janice A Holvoet, Kathleen N Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JXX.0000000000000668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education's accreditation standards require nursing programs to demonstrate that students acquire doctoral-level knowledge and competencies beyond that expected at the baccalaureate and/or masters levels. The purpose of this article was to describe a quality improvement (QI) project for Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner (NP) scholarly projects.</p><p><strong>Local problem: </strong>Nurse practitioner faculty inquired about whether students' scholarly projects were of the quality and rigor expected at the doctoral, rather than masters, level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project was conducted as a QI initiative and was designated as such by the institutional review board. Methods were based on Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act QI process model.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Two doctorally prepared nursing faculty evaluated nine doctoral scholarly projects using the Roush DNP-PCAT instrument. This instrument evaluates 16 components, and key elements within each component, for completeness. The DNP-PCAT tool was evaluated for interrater reliability and content validity in an earlier study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Strengths and weaknesses were identified using quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Floor effects were seen in strategic planning, ethical concerns, data collection, results, discussion, and limitations. Qualitative findings identified weaknesses across all 16 components. Findings were similar to the results reported in a prior study. Results were reviewed and action plans were developed to improve the rigor of scholarly projects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The nursing faculty plan to incorporate routine evaluation of scholarly projects into their program evaluation. Other NP programs may benefit from instituting a similar process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000668\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大学护理教育委员会的认证标准要求护理课程证明学生获得了博士水平的知识和能力,超出了学士和/或硕士水平的预期。本文的目的是描述护理实践博士-家庭护士执业(NP)学术项目的质量改进(QI)项目。当地问题:执业护士教师询问学生的学术项目是否达到博士水平而不是硕士水平的质量和严谨性。方法:本项目作为一项QI倡议进行,并由机构审查委员会指定。方法基于Deming计划-执行-研究-行动QI过程模型。干预措施:两名有博士学位的护理教师使用Roush DNP-PCAT仪器评估了9个博士学术项目。该仪器评估16个组件,以及每个组件中的关键元素,以确保完整性。DNP-PCAT工具在早期的研究中被评估为判读者信度和内容效度。结果:利用定量和定性数据分析确定优势和劣势。地板效应见于战略规划、伦理问题、数据收集、结果、讨论和限制。定性调查结果确定了所有16个组成部分的弱点。研究结果与之前的一项研究结果相似。审查结果并制定行动计划,以提高学术项目的严谨性。结论:护理学院计划将学术项目的常规评估纳入其项目评估。其他NP程序也可以从建立类似的过程中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation and quality improvement of Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner scholarly projects.

Background: The Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education's accreditation standards require nursing programs to demonstrate that students acquire doctoral-level knowledge and competencies beyond that expected at the baccalaureate and/or masters levels. The purpose of this article was to describe a quality improvement (QI) project for Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner (NP) scholarly projects.

Local problem: Nurse practitioner faculty inquired about whether students' scholarly projects were of the quality and rigor expected at the doctoral, rather than masters, level.

Methods: This project was conducted as a QI initiative and was designated as such by the institutional review board. Methods were based on Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act QI process model.

Interventions: Two doctorally prepared nursing faculty evaluated nine doctoral scholarly projects using the Roush DNP-PCAT instrument. This instrument evaluates 16 components, and key elements within each component, for completeness. The DNP-PCAT tool was evaluated for interrater reliability and content validity in an earlier study.

Results: Strengths and weaknesses were identified using quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Floor effects were seen in strategic planning, ethical concerns, data collection, results, discussion, and limitations. Qualitative findings identified weaknesses across all 16 components. Findings were similar to the results reported in a prior study. Results were reviewed and action plans were developed to improve the rigor of scholarly projects.

Conclusions: The nursing faculty plan to incorporate routine evaluation of scholarly projects into their program evaluation. Other NP programs may benefit from instituting a similar process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners
Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-NURSING
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
172
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (JAANP) is a monthly peer-reviewed professional journal that serves as the official publication of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. Published since 1989, the JAANP provides a strong clinical focus with articles related to primary, secondary, and tertiary care, nurse practitioner education, health policy, ethics and ethical issues, and health care delivery. The journal publishes original research, integrative/comprehensive reviews, case studies, a variety of topics in clinical practice, and theory-based articles related to patient and professional education. Although the majority of nurse practitioners function in primary care, there is an increasing focus on the provision of care across all types of systems from acute to long-term care settings.
期刊最新文献
Unregulated male sexual enhancement treatments: Perils and pitfalls for patients and providers Enhancing competency-based assessment: Implementing oral boards in nursing education Enhancing foot care education and support strategies in adults with type 2 diabetes: A qualitative study The important primary care role of neonatal nurse practitioners in the neonatal intensive care unit. Bridging the education-practice gap: Changing nurse practitioner skills through education innovation.
×
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