护士导师与辅导员临床绩效评价的比较

Kathleen M. Seurynck, Carrie Buch, Marisa Ferrari, S. Murphy
{"title":"护士导师与辅导员临床绩效评价的比较","authors":"Kathleen M. Seurynck, Carrie Buch, Marisa Ferrari, S. Murphy","doi":"10.5480/1536-5026-35.3.195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The evaluation of nursing students in the clinical setting is a challenging aspect of nursing education. New models of clinical education, such as dedicated educational units and modified preceptorships (Moscato, Miller, Logsdon, Weinberg, & Chorpenning, 2007), have added to the challenges inherent in evaluating how students apply the theories and skills they learn in the classroom and skills laboratory to actual patients in a real-life setting. One problem is that many newer models of clinical education employ a team-based approach (Nabavi, Vanaki, & Mohammadi, 2011) involving nursing staffwho serve as preceptors or mentors to students (Beerman, 2001). Often these nurses have not received training in student evaluation. New partnerships between hospitals and universities formed to improve education and maximize resources (Nabavi et al.) present additional challenges for faculty.A review of the literature found only one study that compared student clinical evaluations by nurse mentors (n = 98) and instructors (n = 17) (Ferguson & Calder, 1993). While significant differences were found in only 13 percent of the clinical competency ratings, it is important to point out that this study was conducted well before many of the conditions currently affecting health care and nursing education came into being. Our study compared the level of agreement between nursing instructors and mentors in student clinical evaluation in a new model of clinical education.METHODSetting and SampleIn 2007, the University of Michigan School of Nursing and University of Michigan Hospital formed a partnership to create a new model of clinical education in which students are embedded in hospital units in specific clinical clusters. To increase stability and build relationships, students and nursing instructors remain in the same clinical cluster for the duration of their undergraduate education. Students are paired with nurse mentors on the unit, with the instructor providing support and oversight.Each week, the nurse mentors use an online evaluation tool to evaluate students. Based on recommendations from the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (2009), the scores are used as data by faculty when preparing end-of-term clinical performance grades. This study involved 81 nurse mentors for 81 students and 20 instructors.InstrumentsThe Clinical Evaluation Tool, administered online, was based on competencies in the Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2008). The tools used by nursing instructors and nurse mentors evaluated professionalism/accountability; communication; the nursing process; patient education/self-management; safety; and evidence-based practice. The instructor tool also evaluated clinical reasoning, and the wording of some questions varied slightly between the tools. Each tool used a Likert scale scored as follows: 1 (cannot perform), 2 (consistent guidance), 3 (occasional guidance), and 4 (independent).Data Collection ProceduresData were collected during week 8 of the winter term (September 2011 to March 2012). This week was selected because it allowed students to become oriented to their units and evaluators to gain experience completing the tool. Each nurse mentor and instructor completed the tool independently for students on the same day and shift. Only students with both a mentor and instructor evaluation on the same day were compared.Data AnalysisCronbach's alpha was used to assess reliability of the nurse mentor and instructor tools. The internal consistency for items on these tools was found to be high (alpha = .93, mentor; alpha = .96, instructor).To assess level of agreement between instructors and mentors, the kappa statistic was used on a scale of 0 to 1 as follows: level of agreement considered almost perfect (.81 to 1.0); substantial (.61 to .80); moderate (. …","PeriodicalId":153271,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Education Perspective","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Nurse Mentor and Instructor Evaluation of Clinical Performance\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen M. Seurynck, Carrie Buch, Marisa Ferrari, S. Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.5480/1536-5026-35.3.195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The evaluation of nursing students in the clinical setting is a challenging aspect of nursing education. New models of clinical education, such as dedicated educational units and modified preceptorships (Moscato, Miller, Logsdon, Weinberg, & Chorpenning, 2007), have added to the challenges inherent in evaluating how students apply the theories and skills they learn in the classroom and skills laboratory to actual patients in a real-life setting. One problem is that many newer models of clinical education employ a team-based approach (Nabavi, Vanaki, & Mohammadi, 2011) involving nursing staffwho serve as preceptors or mentors to students (Beerman, 2001). Often these nurses have not received training in student evaluation. New partnerships between hospitals and universities formed to improve education and maximize resources (Nabavi et al.) present additional challenges for faculty.A review of the literature found only one study that compared student clinical evaluations by nurse mentors (n = 98) and instructors (n = 17) (Ferguson & Calder, 1993). While significant differences were found in only 13 percent of the clinical competency ratings, it is important to point out that this study was conducted well before many of the conditions currently affecting health care and nursing education came into being. Our study compared the level of agreement between nursing instructors and mentors in student clinical evaluation in a new model of clinical education.METHODSetting and SampleIn 2007, the University of Michigan School of Nursing and University of Michigan Hospital formed a partnership to create a new model of clinical education in which students are embedded in hospital units in specific clinical clusters. To increase stability and build relationships, students and nursing instructors remain in the same clinical cluster for the duration of their undergraduate education. Students are paired with nurse mentors on the unit, with the instructor providing support and oversight.Each week, the nurse mentors use an online evaluation tool to evaluate students. Based on recommendations from the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (2009), the scores are used as data by faculty when preparing end-of-term clinical performance grades. This study involved 81 nurse mentors for 81 students and 20 instructors.InstrumentsThe Clinical Evaluation Tool, administered online, was based on competencies in the Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2008). The tools used by nursing instructors and nurse mentors evaluated professionalism/accountability; communication; the nursing process; patient education/self-management; safety; and evidence-based practice. The instructor tool also evaluated clinical reasoning, and the wording of some questions varied slightly between the tools. Each tool used a Likert scale scored as follows: 1 (cannot perform), 2 (consistent guidance), 3 (occasional guidance), and 4 (independent).Data Collection ProceduresData were collected during week 8 of the winter term (September 2011 to March 2012). This week was selected because it allowed students to become oriented to their units and evaluators to gain experience completing the tool. Each nurse mentor and instructor completed the tool independently for students on the same day and shift. Only students with both a mentor and instructor evaluation on the same day were compared.Data AnalysisCronbach's alpha was used to assess reliability of the nurse mentor and instructor tools. The internal consistency for items on these tools was found to be high (alpha = .93, mentor; alpha = .96, instructor).To assess level of agreement between instructors and mentors, the kappa statistic was used on a scale of 0 to 1 as follows: level of agreement considered almost perfect (.81 to 1.0); substantial (.61 to .80); moderate (. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":153271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Education Perspective\",\"volume\":\"120 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Education Perspective\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-35.3.195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Education Perspective","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-35.3.195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

临床护理学生的评估是护理教育的一个具有挑战性的方面。临床教育的新模式,如专门的教育单位和改进的指导(Moscato, Miller, Logsdon, Weinberg, & Chorpenning, 2007),增加了评估学生如何将他们在课堂和技能实验室学习的理论和技能应用于现实生活中的实际患者的固有挑战。一个问题是,许多较新的临床教育模式采用以团队为基础的方法(Nabavi, Vanaki, & Mohammadi, 2011),包括护理人员作为学生的导师或导师(Beerman, 2001)。这些护士通常没有接受过学生评估方面的培训。医院和大学之间建立了新的伙伴关系,以改善教育和最大限度地利用资源(Nabavi等人),这给教师带来了额外的挑战。对文献的回顾发现,只有一项研究比较了护士导师(n = 98)和教师(n = 17)对学生的临床评估(Ferguson & Calder, 1993)。虽然只有13%的临床能力评级发现了显著的差异,但重要的是要指出,这项研究是在目前影响医疗保健和护理教育的许多条件出现之前进行的。本研究比较了一种新型临床教育模式下护理指导教师与导师对学生临床评价的认同程度。方法设置和样本2007年,密歇根大学护理学院和密歇根大学医院建立了合作伙伴关系,以创建一种新的临床教育模式,在这种模式中,学生被嵌入到特定临床集群的医院单位。为了增加稳定性和建立关系,学生和护理教师在本科教育期间留在同一个临床集群。学生们在单元中与护士导师配对,导师提供支持和监督。每周,护士导师使用在线评估工具对学生进行评估。根据大学护理教育委员会(2009年)的建议,教师在准备期末临床表现评分时使用这些分数作为数据。本研究涉及81名护士导师,81名学生和20名教师。在线管理的临床评估工具是基于专业护理实践学士学位教育要点的能力(美国护理学院协会,2008年)。护理指导员和护士导师使用的工具评估专业性/问责性;沟通;护理过程;病人教育/自我管理;安全;以及基于证据的实践。教师工具也评估临床推理,一些问题的措辞在工具之间略有不同。每个工具使用的李克特量表评分如下:1(不能执行),2(一致指导),3(偶尔指导)和4(独立)。数据收集程序数据收集于冬季学期的第8周(2011年9月至2012年3月)。选择这周是因为它可以让学生适应他们的单元和评估者获得完成工具的经验。每个护士导师和讲师在同一天和当班独立完成了学生的工具。只有在同一天接受导师和讲师评估的学生才会被比较。数据分析采用cronbach’s alpha来评估护士导师和指导员工具的可靠性。发现这些工具上的项目的内部一致性很高(alpha = .93, mentor;Alpha = 0.96,教员)。为了评估导师和导师之间的协议水平,kappa统计在0到1的范围内使用,如下所示:协议水平被认为是几乎完美的(。81 ~ 1.0);大量的(。61 ~ 0.80);温和的(。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Nurse Mentor and Instructor Evaluation of Clinical Performance
The evaluation of nursing students in the clinical setting is a challenging aspect of nursing education. New models of clinical education, such as dedicated educational units and modified preceptorships (Moscato, Miller, Logsdon, Weinberg, & Chorpenning, 2007), have added to the challenges inherent in evaluating how students apply the theories and skills they learn in the classroom and skills laboratory to actual patients in a real-life setting. One problem is that many newer models of clinical education employ a team-based approach (Nabavi, Vanaki, & Mohammadi, 2011) involving nursing staffwho serve as preceptors or mentors to students (Beerman, 2001). Often these nurses have not received training in student evaluation. New partnerships between hospitals and universities formed to improve education and maximize resources (Nabavi et al.) present additional challenges for faculty.A review of the literature found only one study that compared student clinical evaluations by nurse mentors (n = 98) and instructors (n = 17) (Ferguson & Calder, 1993). While significant differences were found in only 13 percent of the clinical competency ratings, it is important to point out that this study was conducted well before many of the conditions currently affecting health care and nursing education came into being. Our study compared the level of agreement between nursing instructors and mentors in student clinical evaluation in a new model of clinical education.METHODSetting and SampleIn 2007, the University of Michigan School of Nursing and University of Michigan Hospital formed a partnership to create a new model of clinical education in which students are embedded in hospital units in specific clinical clusters. To increase stability and build relationships, students and nursing instructors remain in the same clinical cluster for the duration of their undergraduate education. Students are paired with nurse mentors on the unit, with the instructor providing support and oversight.Each week, the nurse mentors use an online evaluation tool to evaluate students. Based on recommendations from the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (2009), the scores are used as data by faculty when preparing end-of-term clinical performance grades. This study involved 81 nurse mentors for 81 students and 20 instructors.InstrumentsThe Clinical Evaluation Tool, administered online, was based on competencies in the Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2008). The tools used by nursing instructors and nurse mentors evaluated professionalism/accountability; communication; the nursing process; patient education/self-management; safety; and evidence-based practice. The instructor tool also evaluated clinical reasoning, and the wording of some questions varied slightly between the tools. Each tool used a Likert scale scored as follows: 1 (cannot perform), 2 (consistent guidance), 3 (occasional guidance), and 4 (independent).Data Collection ProceduresData were collected during week 8 of the winter term (September 2011 to March 2012). This week was selected because it allowed students to become oriented to their units and evaluators to gain experience completing the tool. Each nurse mentor and instructor completed the tool independently for students on the same day and shift. Only students with both a mentor and instructor evaluation on the same day were compared.Data AnalysisCronbach's alpha was used to assess reliability of the nurse mentor and instructor tools. The internal consistency for items on these tools was found to be high (alpha = .93, mentor; alpha = .96, instructor).To assess level of agreement between instructors and mentors, the kappa statistic was used on a scale of 0 to 1 as follows: level of agreement considered almost perfect (.81 to 1.0); substantial (.61 to .80); moderate (. …
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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