MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2031275833 · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00437.x

Using Patient Experience in Nurse Education

2007· article· en· W2031275833 sur OpenAlexaff
Angela Towle

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth Expectations · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNurse educationContext (archaeology)NursingHealth careInclusion (mineral)RhetoricPsychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Edited By Tony Warne and Sue McAndrew , Palgrave Macmillan , 2004 . PB £19.99 , 208 pp . ISBN 1 403934010 Current UK health policy places an emphasis on the greater involvement of patients and carers in all aspects of their health care. This book is about the involvement of patients in the training and education of health-care practitioners, with a particular focus on nursing. The individual chapters fall into two sections. The first part provides the context for patient involvement: it examines the current policy and rhetoric of patient involvement in health-care planning and delivery of services, and in the education of professionals. The second part describes specific examples of innovative practices that demonstrate the inclusion of patients in education. As a non-nurse I was both fascinated and frustrated by some of the chapters about the philosophy and theory of nursing practice. The one I found most useful was the first, written by the book's editors, which provides the contextual background to the rest of the book by illustrating the complex range of factors that have influenced, and continue to influence, nursing practice and education. It gives a brief history of the development of higher educational approaches to nurse education, the movement from schools of nursing to universities, and current UK and international approaches to professional education. It links the need to involve patients to the patient centred method. It proposes ‘patient experience knowledge’ as the missing link between theoretical and practical knowledge, both of which in their differing ways are general and generalizable. Patient knowledge experience is, by contrast, specific to this patient and ‘forces a shift in gaze from the body to the person living a life.’ As a medical educator, the chapters that describe actual examples from current practice and lessons learned were, for me, the most accessible and useful parts of the book. Costello and Horne describe the involvement of three patients who took part in classroom teaching within a pre-registration nursing programme at the University of Manchester. They discuss some of the practical, ethical and organizational issues, as well as the role of the nurse teacher in organizing and managing the session. The key to manage classroom situations with patients appears to rely on sound teaching principles and the ability of the teacher to deal with both the practical and ethical issues raised by shifting the focus of teaching and sharing the responsibility for teaching with the patient. Three examples are given from initiatives at the University of Leeds. O'Neill provides an overview of a project that aims to identify ways of developing more effective and sustainable ways of involving patients and carers in pre-registration educational programmes for nurses and midwives. This is an attempt to move beyond a reactive ‘tick box’ approach to involvement, to bring patients into the core of the university in contrast to their previous role as occasional visitors. It highlights strategies to effect the institutional changes required for meaningful patient participation in education. Kilminster et al. describe the involvement of different types of patients in the education of medical students: there are ‘simulated’ patients (trained to pay a role), ‘expert’ patients (with chronic or life-threatening conditions) and ‘real’ patients (involved in all the clinical experiences of students and beginning to be involved in assessment); related community-based educational activities are also described. Samociuk and McAndrew describe a project for mental health nursing students in a postgraduate diploma programme that explored the feasibility of a model of sustained patient involvement. The project was designed as action research and involved seven students, five patients, two lecturers and an observer. The chapter summarizes evaluation data from the patients, facilitators and observer and identifies the areas that would need to be addressed if this model were to be adapted for future collaborative work. These include the need to establish clear boundaries for providing a safe environment, support for all participants, and institutional commitment including resources and establishment of systems for remuneration. In contrast to these examples of bringing the patient into the classroom setting, Canham explores ways of involving patients in practice settings in the education of specialist community practitioner students, such as community mental health nurses and school nurses. She argues that in post-registration courses where students are experienced nurses, one should build on ways to enhance patient participation in the community practice setting rather than focus on ways of ‘bringing the patient to the students’ in an institutional (artificial) setting separate from the normal student–patient interface. Ideas for enhancing patient-centred, student-centred learning are provided. These, for me, was the most interesting parts of the book. However, if your interest is the bigger picture of patient involvement, policy development or nurse education there is plenty of additional food for thought in this book. With the exception of mental health nursing, the active engagement of patients/lay people in the education of health professionals is a recent movement. This book reflects the current stage in its evolution. It is strong on rationale – the reasons why it is a good thing to do – but short on evidence – the rigorously evaluated benefits to students, patients and teachers. I look forward to a sequel to this book that focuses on the educational outcomes of using patient experiences in nurse education.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,073
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,146
Tête enseignante GPT0,556
Écart entre enseignants0,410 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth ExpectationsMême sujetPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTravaux en français237 207