Evaluation of a new concept to improve and organize clinical practice in nursing education: a pilot-study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Nursing students may experience clinical practice as unsafe due to the interactions with patients, fear of making mistakes, lack of clinical experience and supervision, which results in anxiety and stress. Thus, interventions to improve and organize the learning environment in clinical practice for nursing students are warranted, and the aim of this pilot-study was to evaluate a new concept of clinical practice in order to get insight on the different initiatives and gain knowledge for further developing.

Methods

The new concept consisted of nursing students being affiliated to the same department during their clinical practices, reflective supervision, and participation in a self-compassion course. Data was collected using questionnaires and focus group interviews of 17 nursing students, 17 clinical supervisors, and 14 head nurses. A mixed-methods strategy was employed to give the study a pragmatic approach. Finding from the questionnaires and focus group interviews were analyzed separately and then weaved together into themes.

Results

The results generated four themes: Information and involvement before and during the new concept, Learning outcomes, safety, and well-being, Impact of reflective supervision and self-compassion course, and Transition from study life to working life. In general, the participating nursing students, clinical supervisors, and head nurses had positives experiences regarding the new concept. They felt well-informed, and they experienced that it contributed to a safe learning environment, increased well-being, strengthened the relationship between nursing students and clinical supervisors and healthcare staff at the department, and prepared the nursing students to working life.

Conclusion

Our results complement the suggestion that improved quality of clinical practice for nursing students is an effective strategy to establish a safe and supportive learning environment that contribute with satisfaction, successful experiences, and attraction of future nurses. However, further intervention studies are needed to compare the effect of the new concept with traditional clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-024-01888-y.

Related collections

Most cited references 29

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness.

U.H. Graneheim, B Lundman (2004)

Qualitative content analysis as described in published literature shows conflicting opinions and unsolved issues regarding meaning and use of concepts, procedures and interpretation. This paper provides an overview of important concepts (manifest and latent content, unit of analysis, meaning unit, condensation, abstraction, content area, code, category and theme) related to qualitative content analysis; illustrates the use of concepts related to the research procedure; and proposes measures to achieve trustworthiness (credibility, dependability and transferability) throughout the steps of the research procedure. Interpretation in qualitative content analysis is discussed in light of Watzlawick et al.'s [Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London] theory of communication.

0 comments Cited 2566 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials

Sandra M. Eldridge, Claire L Chan, Michael J Campbell … (2017)

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor’s note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.

0 comments Cited 762 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies

Gillian A. Lancaster, Lehana Thabane (2019)

As the number of submissions to Pilot and Feasibility Studies increases, there is a need for good quality reporting guidelines to help researchers tailor their reports in a way that is consistent and helpful to other readers. The publication in 2016 of the CONSORT extension to pilot and feasibility trials filled a much-needed gap, but there still remains some uncertainty as to how to report pilot and feasibility studies that are not randomised. This editorial aims to provide some general guidance on how to report the most common types of non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies that are submitted to the journal. We recommend using the CONSORT extension to pilot and feasibility trials as the main reference document—it includes detailed elaboration and explanation of each item, and in most cases, simple adaptation, or non-use of items that are not applicable, will suffice. Several checklists found on the Equator website may provide helpful supplementary guidance, when used alongside the CONSORT extension, and we give some examples.

0 comments Cited 129 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Lea Ladegaard Grønkjær: lea.ladegaard.gronkjaer@rsyd.dk

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Nurs

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Nurs

Title: BMC Nursing

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1472-6955

Publication date (Electronic): 26 March 2024

Publication date PMC-release: 26 March 2024

Publication date Collection: 2024

Volume: 23

Electronic Location Identifier: 203

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.7143.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0512 5013, Department of Education, Department of Gastroenterology, , University Hospital of Southern Denmark, ; Esbjerg, Denmark

[2 ]Nursing Education, University College South Denmark, ( https://ror.org/058q57q63) Esbjerg, Denmark

[3 ]GRID grid.7143.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0512 5013, Department of Gastroenterology, , University Hospital of Southern Denmark, ; Finsensgade 35, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark

Article

Publisher ID: 1888

DOI: 10.1186/s12912-024-01888-y

PMC ID: 10964657

PubMed ID: 38532438

SO-VID: c68f8967-b1fd-4028-98f0-cc3544ea263c

License:

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 24 November 2023

Date accepted : 21 March 2024

Funding

Funded by: Open access funding provided by University of Southern Denmark

Funded by: University of Southern Denmark

Open Access :

Open access funding provided by University of Southern Denmark

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Nursing

Keywords: clinical practice,learning environment,nursing education,nursing students

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Nursing

Keywords: clinical practice, learning environment, nursing education, nursing students

Evaluation of a new concept to improve and organize clinical practice in nursing education: a pilot-study

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Related collections

International Journal of Applied Technology in Medical Sciences

Most cited references 29

Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness.

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials

Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 62

Most referenced authors 269