How Do Mental Health Nursing Students in the United Kingdom Experience Assessment Against the NMC Generic Standards of Proficiency? A Cross-Field Comparison
Mark Kenwright, Carolyn McCrorie, Christopher Bye, Patricia Awty, Donna Doherty, Maxine Cromar-Hayes
{"title":"How Do Mental Health Nursing Students in the United Kingdom Experience Assessment Against the NMC Generic Standards of Proficiency? A Cross-Field Comparison","authors":"Mark Kenwright, Carolyn McCrorie, Christopher Bye, Patricia Awty, Donna Doherty, Maxine Cromar-Hayes","doi":"10.1111/inm.70133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 2018 the UK's Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) moved from field-specific to generic standards of proficiency in training all four fields of nursing practice. Some educators claim these proficiencies exclude field-specific content, but there is a lack of comparative evidence on student feedback across each field. This study examined student nurses experiences of being assessed against these generic proficiencies to identify whether there are any differences between the fields of nursing in the United Kingdom. In a cross-sectional study employing a mixed-methods anonymous online survey, 531 nursing students in the final 3 months of training were surveyed across UK universities in 10 regions of the United Kingdom. Significant differences between nursing fields were observed in students' feedback on the NMC proficiencies (<i>p</i> = 0.000). Mental health nursing students reported the lowest levels of practice confidence; significant barriers to achieving proficiencies; and exclusion of field-specific knowledge and skills, which devalued and threatened their professional identity. Adult nursing students reported high levels of practice confidence; fewer barriers to achieving proficiencies; variable experiences of placement support; and a preference for more focus on communication skills. Feedback indicates that students experience the generic proficiencies as a list of medical procedures that exclude communication and relationship management skills. The findings suggest that further evaluation and guidance are required to ensure that mental health proficiencies are included in practice assessment documentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":14007,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","volume":"34 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/inm.70133","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inm.70133","RegionNum":2,"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
In 2018 the UK's Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) moved from field-specific to generic standards of proficiency in training all four fields of nursing practice. Some educators claim these proficiencies exclude field-specific content, but there is a lack of comparative evidence on student feedback across each field. This study examined student nurses experiences of being assessed against these generic proficiencies to identify whether there are any differences between the fields of nursing in the United Kingdom. In a cross-sectional study employing a mixed-methods anonymous online survey, 531 nursing students in the final 3 months of training were surveyed across UK universities in 10 regions of the United Kingdom. Significant differences between nursing fields were observed in students' feedback on the NMC proficiencies (p = 0.000). Mental health nursing students reported the lowest levels of practice confidence; significant barriers to achieving proficiencies; and exclusion of field-specific knowledge and skills, which devalued and threatened their professional identity. Adult nursing students reported high levels of practice confidence; fewer barriers to achieving proficiencies; variable experiences of placement support; and a preference for more focus on communication skills. Feedback indicates that students experience the generic proficiencies as a list of medical procedures that exclude communication and relationship management skills. The findings suggest that further evaluation and guidance are required to ensure that mental health proficiencies are included in practice assessment documentation.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing is the official journal of the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc. It is a fully refereed journal that examines current trends and developments in mental health practice and research.
The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on all issues of relevance to mental health nursing. The Journal informs you of developments in mental health nursing practice and research, directions in education and training, professional issues, management approaches, policy development, ethical questions, theoretical inquiry, and clinical issues.
The Journal publishes feature articles, review articles, clinical notes, research notes and book reviews. Contributions on any aspect of mental health nursing are welcomed.
Statements and opinions expressed in the journal reflect the views of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.