How Do Mental Health Nursing Students in the United Kingdom Experience Assessment Against the NMC Generic Standards of Proficiency? A Cross-Field Comparison

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
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,&nbsp;Carolyn McCrorie,&nbsp;Christopher Bye,&nbsp;Patricia Awty,&nbsp;Donna Doherty,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

英国心理健康护理专业学生在NMC通用水平标准下的经验评估如何?跨领域比较
2018年,英国护理和助产委员会(NMC)将培训所有四个护理实践领域的熟练程度标准从特定领域改为通用标准。一些教育工作者声称这些熟练程度排除了特定领域的内容,但缺乏关于学生在每个领域反馈的比较证据。这项研究检查了学生护士的经验,被评估针对这些通用熟练程度,以确定是否有护理在英国的领域之间的任何差异。在一项采用混合方法匿名在线调查的横断面研究中,在英国10个地区的英国大学对531名护理专业学生进行了最后3个月的调查。不同护理专业学生对NMC熟练程度的反馈差异有统计学意义(p = 0.000)。心理健康护理专业的学生报告的实践信心水平最低;达到熟练程度的重大障碍;并排除了特定领域的知识和技能,这使他们的职业身份贬值并受到威胁。成人护理专业的学生报告了高水平的实践信心;实现熟练程度的障碍更少;就业支持的可变经验;以及更注重沟通技巧的偏好。反馈表明,学生体验到的一般熟练程度是一系列医疗程序,不包括沟通和关系管理技能。研究结果表明,需要进一步的评估和指导,以确保将心理健康熟练程度纳入实践评估文件。
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
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
8.90%
发文量
128
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信