Characteristics and processes of the dedicated education unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to review literature related to the dedicated education unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students, and identify common characteristics and processes for implementing and sustaining this model. INTRODUCTION: Although practice education is central to undergraduate nursing education, evidence-informed practices for learning in the clinical setting remain elusive. Changes to health care over the past decades related to the role and scope of practice for nurses, gradual shifts to community- and population-based care delivery, and expectations for interprofessional practice require forward-looking education models. The dedicated education unit model was developed in 1997 as a potential solution to globally recognized challenges in nursing education amidst discourses of nursing resource scarcity. Despite more than two decades of innovation and expansion, there is still limited understanding of the effectiveness of the dedicated education unit as a solution to those challenges, or for the anticipated benefits for students and patients, through enhanced evidence-informed health care. This analysis of the characteristics and processes of the model is timely for evaluating and sustaining implementation of the dedicated education unit across nursing practice and education settings. INCLUSION CRITERIA: English-only publications related to the dedicated education unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students in baccalaureate and associate degree programs using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research, and quality improvement, program evaluation, and opinion publications were included. METHODS: Using selected keywords including "dedicated education unit," we searched CINAHL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Academic Premier Search, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP Database, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria. We reviewed reference lists for gray literature and additional references. Data were extracted from the included articles and categorized for characteristics and processes. Eighty-two publications from January 1997 to May 2020 were included. The findings were presented descriptively with tables and figures to support the data. RESULTS: Dedicated education unit models were based on five characteristics and four processes. Characteristics of the dedicated education unit model included effective academic-practice partnership, adaptability to diverse contexts, unit culture of educational excellence, responsive and supportive unit leadership, and clarity of roles and responsibilities. Processes included building nurse and faculty capacity, facilitating student learning, communicating regularly at systems and unit levels, and evaluating and sustaining the model. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence demonstrated that the dedicated education unit practice education model is well-established. However, there were existing gaps in this evidence, specifically evaluation and economic analyses. There was also limited attention to long-term sustainability of the model. The common characteristics and processes identified in this review may be used to support planning, implementation, and evaluation, including development and validation of evaluation tools. Although administrative infrastructure was noted as central to the dedicated education unit strategy, it was rarely acknowledged as part of management and thus also requires further study.
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 | 0,024 | 0,086 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».