MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3169940955 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00086

Physical assessment skills taught in nursing curricula: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3169940955 sur OpenAlexaff
Sherry Morrell, Natalie Giannotti, Gina Pittman, Adam Mulcaster

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueNursing education and management
Établissements canadiensUniversity of WindsorCentre for Excellence in Mining Innovation
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurriculumNursingMedical educationPsychologyMedicinePedagogy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review sought to establish the current state of knowledge regarding physical assessment skills taught globally in undergraduate nursing curricula. Explicitly, the review aimed to determine which skills are being taught via curricula and which skills are performed by students in clinical placements, as well as what physical assessment skills are being used by registered nurses in practice. INTRODUCTION: Nursing programs are expected to teach the physical assessment skills required for entry-level registered nurses to practice competently. The discrepancy lies in determining which skills are essential to teach entry-level nurses and which are unessential. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that examined physical assessment skills taught to students in any undergraduate registered nursing program or used by registered nurses in practice were considered. Physical assessments included all techniques or skills taught in any year of a university or college teaching global registered nursing curricula. METHODS: Databases searched included MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid). Sources of unpublished studies included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, OpenGrey, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and Google Scholar. Studies published in English between January 2008 and November 2019 were included. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were imported into the Covidence systematic review manager. Extracted data were presented in a descriptive format, including characteristics of included studies and relevant key findings. RESULTS: Thirteen records were extracted for synthesis: one integrated review, one author reflection, one mixed methods study, and 10 quantitative studies. The sources represented a global context: the United States, New Zealand, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Korea, Italy, and one of unknown origin. Three studies examined physical assessment skills routinely taught in global nursing curricula. Three studies explored physical assessment skills routinely used by students during nursing programs. Seven studies examined which physical assessment skills were routinely performed by registered nurses in practice. In the studies, there were 98 to 122 physical assessment skills taught in global nursing programs. However, only 33 skills were routinely taught in curricula, and of those, only 20 were the same across all studies (core skills). Students in nursing programs routinely performed 30 physical assessment skills, and six of the 30 skills were the same across all studies (core skills). Of the six core skills routinely performed by students, five were also routinely taught in nursing curricula in the included studies. Registered nurses routinely performed 39 physical assessment skills, and 11 skills were the same across all studies (core skills). Ten of the physical assessment skills taught in curricula were routinely performed by registered nurses in practice. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides insight into physical assessment skills taught in nursing curricula and used by registered nurses in practice. This knowledge is essential for curriculum revisions and planning as it provides insight on how to best meet the needs of future nursing students.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,038
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,199

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0380,151
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,007
Bibliométrie0,0340,036
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0080,008
Science ouverte0,0030,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,456
Écart entre enseignants0,424 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations16
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetNursing education and managementTravaux en français237 207