探索临床实践的评估政策:文献的范围综述

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Collegian Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.colegn.2023.03.007
Lynda J. Hughes , Amy N.B. Johnston , Jacqueline H. Byrne , Debbie Massey
{"title":"探索临床实践的评估政策:文献的范围综述","authors":"Lynda J. Hughes ,&nbsp;Amy N.B. Johnston ,&nbsp;Jacqueline H. Byrne ,&nbsp;Debbie Massey","doi":"10.1016/j.colegn.2023.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Assessment of pre-registration nursing students in clinical practice is an essential process, ensuring students who graduate meet standards for practice and competently and safely care for patients under their care. However, such assessment remains challenging for individuals and organisations.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>We aimed to investigate what is known about the application of clinical placement assessment policies guiding pre-registration nursing programmes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Arskey and O’Malley’s five-stage method for scoping reviews was employed. Health and education databases were searched in July 2020 and December 2021. Identified papers were screened. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tools were used to appraise the quality of the included articles. The Invitational Theory domains of people, processes, programmes, places, and policies were utilised to aid meaningful analysis of the findings.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Nineteen articles were appraised: eleven primary data studies, two that psychometrically tested a survey instrument, four discussion articles, and two literature reviews. Article quality varied widely. Three themes were identified: lack of processes around clinical practice, people and clinical practice, and policies and clinical practice.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Assessment within placement is complex and unique. Uncertainty permeates the literature around assessment of pre-registration students in clinical practice. There is a clear need to promote policies that highlight differences between theoretical and practice assessment, ensuring all stakeholders can access relevant governance processes that support patient safety.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>More empirical evidence is needed to develop policies and processes that reduce uncertainty and improve patient safety associated with student assessment within clinical placements.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55241,"journal":{"name":"Collegian","volume":"30 4","pages":"Pages 530-538"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring assessment policies for clinical practice: A scoping review of the literature\",\"authors\":\"Lynda J. Hughes ,&nbsp;Amy N.B. Johnston ,&nbsp;Jacqueline H. Byrne ,&nbsp;Debbie Massey\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.colegn.2023.03.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Assessment of pre-registration nursing students in clinical practice is an essential process, ensuring students who graduate meet standards for practice and competently and safely care for patients under their care. However, such assessment remains challenging for individuals and organisations.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>We aimed to investigate what is known about the application of clinical placement assessment policies guiding pre-registration nursing programmes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Arskey and O’Malley’s five-stage method for scoping reviews was employed. Health and education databases were searched in July 2020 and December 2021. Identified papers were screened. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tools were used to appraise the quality of the included articles. The Invitational Theory domains of people, processes, programmes, places, and policies were utilised to aid meaningful analysis of the findings.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Nineteen articles were appraised: eleven primary data studies, two that psychometrically tested a survey instrument, four discussion articles, and two literature reviews. Article quality varied widely. Three themes were identified: lack of processes around clinical practice, people and clinical practice, and policies and clinical practice.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Assessment within placement is complex and unique. Uncertainty permeates the literature around assessment of pre-registration students in clinical practice. There is a clear need to promote policies that highlight differences between theoretical and practice assessment, ensuring all stakeholders can access relevant governance processes that support patient safety.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>More empirical evidence is needed to develop policies and processes that reduce uncertainty and improve patient safety associated with student assessment within clinical placements.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collegian\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 530-538\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collegian\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1322769623000331\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collegian","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1322769623000331","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在临床实践中对预注册护理学生进行评估是一个必要的过程,以确保毕业的学生达到实践标准,并能胜任和安全地照顾他们所照顾的病人。然而,这种评估对个人和组织来说仍然具有挑战性。AimWe旨在调查临床安置评估政策指导预注册护理计划的应用情况。方法采用sarskey和O 'Malley的五阶段法进行范围评价。在2020年7月和2021年12月检索了卫生和教育数据库。识别的文件进行了筛选。乔安娜布里格斯研究所的关键评估工具被用来评估纳入文章的质量。人员、流程、方案、地点和政策的邀请理论领域被用来帮助对研究结果进行有意义的分析。19篇文章被评估:11篇主要数据研究,2篇心理测量测试了一种调查工具,4篇讨论文章和2篇文献综述。商品质量参差不齐。确定了三个主题:缺乏临床实践过程,人与临床实践,政策与临床实践。讨论安置中的评估是复杂和独特的。在临床实践中,不确定性弥漫在对预注册学生评估的文献中。显然有必要促进强调理论评估和实践评估之间差异的政策,确保所有利益攸关方都能获得支持患者安全的相关治理流程。结论:需要更多的经验证据来制定政策和流程,以减少不确定性,提高临床实习中与学生评估相关的患者安全。
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
Exploring assessment policies for clinical practice: A scoping review of the literature

Background

Assessment of pre-registration nursing students in clinical practice is an essential process, ensuring students who graduate meet standards for practice and competently and safely care for patients under their care. However, such assessment remains challenging for individuals and organisations.

Aim

We aimed to investigate what is known about the application of clinical placement assessment policies guiding pre-registration nursing programmes.

Methods

Arskey and O’Malley’s five-stage method for scoping reviews was employed. Health and education databases were searched in July 2020 and December 2021. Identified papers were screened. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tools were used to appraise the quality of the included articles. The Invitational Theory domains of people, processes, programmes, places, and policies were utilised to aid meaningful analysis of the findings.

Findings

Nineteen articles were appraised: eleven primary data studies, two that psychometrically tested a survey instrument, four discussion articles, and two literature reviews. Article quality varied widely. Three themes were identified: lack of processes around clinical practice, people and clinical practice, and policies and clinical practice.

Discussion

Assessment within placement is complex and unique. Uncertainty permeates the literature around assessment of pre-registration students in clinical practice. There is a clear need to promote policies that highlight differences between theoretical and practice assessment, ensuring all stakeholders can access relevant governance processes that support patient safety.

Conclusion

More empirical evidence is needed to develop policies and processes that reduce uncertainty and improve patient safety associated with student assessment within clinical placements.

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
Collegian
Collegian NURSING-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
127
审稿时长
72 days
期刊介绍: Collegian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research is the official journal of Australian College of Nursing (ACN). The journal aims to reflect the broad interests of nurses and the nursing profession, and to challenge nurses on emerging areas of interest. It publishes research articles and scholarly discussion of nursing practice, policy and professional issues. Papers published in the journal are peer reviewed by a double blind process using reviewers who meet high standards of academic and clinical expertise. Invited papers that contribute to nursing knowledge and debate are published at the discretion of the Editor. The journal, online only from 2016, is available to members of ACN and also by separate subscription. ACN believes that each and every nurse in Australia should have the opportunity to grow their career through quality education, and further our profession through representation. ACN is the voice of influence, providing the nursing expertise and experience required when government and key stakeholders are deciding the future of health.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Staff perceptions of the potential for nurses to address service gaps within a homeless health service in Sydney, Australia: Results of a cross-sectional survey Workplace violence against nurses in rural governmental hospitals in Jordan Implementation of evidence-based practice in paediatric nursing care: Facilitators and barriers Weaning small babies from incubator to cot: A systematic 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