Assessing numeracy and medication calculations within undergraduate nursing education: A qualitative study.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Christine Minty-Walker, Nathan J Wilson, Leanne Rylands, Jim Pettigrew, Leanne Hunt
{"title":"Assessing numeracy and medication calculations within undergraduate nursing education: A qualitative study.","authors":"Christine Minty-Walker, Nathan J Wilson, Leanne Rylands, Jim Pettigrew, Leanne Hunt","doi":"10.1002/nop2.2226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore how undergraduate nursing students are assessed on nursing numeracy and medication calculations from the perspective of Australian nurse education leaders.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 nurse education leaders between November 2022 and January 2023. Braun and Clarke's six phases of thematic analysis were used to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five key themes were identified: (i) high expectations to keep the public safe, (ii) diverse assessment formats, (iii) different ways of managing assessment integrity, (iv) assessment conditions incongruent to the clinical setting and (v) supporting struggling students.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nurse education leaders set high standards requiring students to achieve 100% in numeracy and medication calculation assessments, thus maintaining the reputation of nursing and patient safety. However, students struggled to meet this expectation. Diverse assessment formats were implemented, with some examination conditions contrary to clinical practice. Currently, there is no benchmark or independent point of registration examination in Australia, hence the problem is each university had a different standard to judge students' competence. Gaining insight into how these assessments are conducted provides an opportunity to work towards an evidence-based model or benchmark for the assessment of numeracy.</p><p><strong>Implications for the profession: </strong>Dosage errors in clinical practice threaten patient safety and the reputation of the nursing profession. The accuracy rate of calculations by undergraduate and registered nurses is deficient worldwide. This research highlights a major educational issue, that being the wide variation in how numeracy assessments are conducted with no clear pedagogical rationale for a standardised method. Such assessments would establish a national standard, contributing to quality assurance, the development of the nursing profession and improve patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11214913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.2226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To explore how undergraduate nursing students are assessed on nursing numeracy and medication calculations from the perspective of Australian nurse education leaders.

Design: A qualitative study.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 nurse education leaders between November 2022 and January 2023. Braun and Clarke's six phases of thematic analysis were used to analyse the data.

Results: Five key themes were identified: (i) high expectations to keep the public safe, (ii) diverse assessment formats, (iii) different ways of managing assessment integrity, (iv) assessment conditions incongruent to the clinical setting and (v) supporting struggling students.

Conclusion: Nurse education leaders set high standards requiring students to achieve 100% in numeracy and medication calculation assessments, thus maintaining the reputation of nursing and patient safety. However, students struggled to meet this expectation. Diverse assessment formats were implemented, with some examination conditions contrary to clinical practice. Currently, there is no benchmark or independent point of registration examination in Australia, hence the problem is each university had a different standard to judge students' competence. Gaining insight into how these assessments are conducted provides an opportunity to work towards an evidence-based model or benchmark for the assessment of numeracy.

Implications for the profession: Dosage errors in clinical practice threaten patient safety and the reputation of the nursing profession. The accuracy rate of calculations by undergraduate and registered nurses is deficient worldwide. This research highlights a major educational issue, that being the wide variation in how numeracy assessments are conducted with no clear pedagogical rationale for a standardised method. Such assessments would establish a national standard, contributing to quality assurance, the development of the nursing profession and improve patient safety.

在本科护理教育中评估计算能力和药物计算:定性研究。
目的:从澳大利亚护士教育领导者的角度,探讨如何评估护理本科生的护理计算能力和药物计算能力:定性研究:在 2022 年 11 月至 2023 年 1 月期间,对 17 名护士教育领导者进行了半结构化访谈。采用布劳恩和克拉克的六阶段主题分析方法对数据进行分析:结果:确定了五个关键主题:结果:确定了五个关键主题:(i) 对保证公众安全的高期望值;(ii) 多样化的评估形式;(iii) 管理评估完整性的不同方法;(iv) 与临床环境不一致的评估条件;(v) 支持有困难的学生:护士教育领导者设定了高标准,要求学生在计算能力和药物计算评估中达到 100%,从而维护护理的声誉和患者安全。然而,学生们却难以达到这一要求。评估形式多样,有些考试条件与临床实践相悖。目前,澳大利亚没有基准或独立的注册考试点,因此问题在于每所大学都有不同的标准来评判学生的能力。深入了解这些评估是如何进行的,将为制定以证据为基础的计算能力评估模式或基准提供机会:临床实践中的剂量错误威胁着患者的安全和护理专业的声誉。全世界本科生和注册护士的计算准确率都很低。这项研究凸显了一个重大的教育问题,即计算能力评估的方式千差万别,而标准化方法却没有明确的教学依据。这种评估将建立一个国家标准,有助于质量保证、护理专业的发展和改善患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信