Host Agency Perspectives on Facilitating Community-Based Clinical Experiences for Nursing Students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nurse educators have developed many innovations for nursing education in response to the current shortage of clinical placements. Nursing programs are increasingly relying on placements in community-based agencies (some of which are not health agencies) and university-agency collaborations are being developed to enhance capacity for student placements. Our interest in this qualitative study was to elicit the perspectives of host agencies in these alternate sites regarding hosting undergraduate student clinical placements. Aims were to gain insight about 1) how community-based host agencies decide to host students, including how the number of students hosted is determined; 2) the nature of agency–university partnerships; and 3) the agency’s experiences of hosting students in relation to benefits and issues that accompany hosting students. Administrators from 25 community-based agencies that hosted undergraduate nursing students from the researchers’ university were invited to participate in an online survey or telephone interview, with a final sample size of 18 respondents. Each participant was given the option of a telephone interview but most elected to complete the online survey because of its flexibility; five participants were interviewed on the phone and 13 completed the open-ended survey questions online. Findings revealed that host agency decisions to host students could have an ad hoc nature to them, and were described as contingent on various explicit and implicit factors such as staff availability, the perceived contribution of students, or a philosophic commitment to contribute to student education. Smaller agencies reported and preferred informal partnerships with the educational institutions because they were perceived to be more flexible, and all sites emphasized the need for increased, improved communication with clinical instructors and more direct supervision of student placements by the educational unit. The benefits of hosting student nurses were described as outweighing the issues and challenges. The study also revealed incongruities between the perspectives of these host agencies and typically-held views of nursing programs, whereby host agencies spoke of the “ideal student” and nursing programs tend to seek an “ideal placement.” Further research is needed to generate knowledge about expanding capacity for clinical placements, enhancing partnerships, and enriching student learning outcomes.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».