Emergency Nursing: A Staff-Led Mentorship Program in a Tertiary Adult and Pediatric Emergency Department
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Emergency Department (ED) nurses are familiar with high levels of turnover and staff burnout. All EDs have faced unprecedented stressors related to the global COVID-19 pandemic including higher patient acuity, senior staff attrition, and increased numbers of less-experienced new hires. In one combined pediatric and adult tertiary ED, senior nursing staff identified a need for integrating formalized mentorship for new staff in the current nursing orientation. Three senior, experienced, Registered Nurses (Mentor Leads) developed and implemented a volunteer-based, staff-led mentorship initiative piloted throughout 2021. Implementation: Mentor Leads conducted stakeholder consultation with recent new hires and senior staff prior to proposing the mentorship program model to management and the education team in November 2020. Support obtained allocated Mentor Leads two hours of classroom department orientation to conduct virtual presentations with new hires (Mentees). The presentation was structured as a nursing assignment simulation with opportunities for open discussion; it reviewed emergency case scenarios, prioritization/time management, department flow, multidisciplinary communication, and staff roles and resources. Then groups of two to four nursing Mentors, with at least one year of experience in the department, provided sequential in-person and email check-ins throughout the first six-months of the Mentees’ employment. Electronic materials, including mentorship expectations and resources, were disseminated to the Mentors to support them during their mentorship term. Evaluation Methods: Qualitative feedback was sought from Mentors and Mentees at the end of their mentorship term. Both were asked to describe any personal benefit gained from participation in the program, any challenges they recognized, and if/how the program impacted their future employment in the department. In addition, Mentees were asked to provide survey feedback following the orientation presentation. Results: The mentorship program was applied to all nine orientation groups hired in 2021. A total of 70 new hires participated as Mentees. Twenty-one volunteer Mentors were utilized to lead the orientation groups. Initial qualitative feedback for the orientation presentation and the six-month follow-up was universally positive. Qualitative themes included enhanced preparedness concerning department realities, feeling welcomed by staff, and improved understanding of department flow and avenues of assistance. One Mentee shared that, without the program they would have considered seeking new opportunities outside of the emergency department setting shortly after orientation. Mentors expressed a crucial need for the program and shared that their responsibilities and expectations were manageable. Mentors felt the email communication structure was less effective than the in-person check-ins. An incidental benefit of the program’s implementation was its positive effect on staff participating as Mentors. They reported that their experience with the program provided them with purpose, decreased levels of burnout, and strengthened their teaching and leadership skills. Qualitative feedback from Mentor Leads and experienced staff report that department mentorship culture as a whole has been enhanced by the program. Advice and Lessons Learned: Strong partnership with key stakeholders, including management and the nursing education team, was vital to implementing a successful mentorship program in the department. Concerns voiced by Mentors regarding Mentee overall performance and potential practice challenges were escalated to department Clinical Nurse Educators in order to provide targeted educational support for the success of staff. The role of strong and determined Mentor Leads were key to conduct the necessary building, implementation, and preservation of the program. A significant amount of invested time was required to ensure program success. Consideration should be given to fiscal resources to incentivize staff-led grassroots mentorship programs. Future program evaluation hopes to include detailed evaluation of objective data comparing levels of nurse turnover and vacancy rates pre- and post-implementation of the program, and an economic evaluation. Future opportunities for this program are to expand mentorship to staff new to resuscitation, triage, and charge nurse roles within the department, as well as replicate the work to other local and provincial EDs.
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 | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
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 ».