Igniting a focus on mentorship
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite the complex and growing number of older adults requiring specialized nursing care,1 gerontological nursing is too often perceived as less prestigious than other areas of nursing.2 Similar to many practicing nurses,3 students do not always appreciate gerontology as a highly skilled area of practice.2 Nursing faculty and staff of residential aged care facilities (RACFs) hold a critical and influential role in disrupting these preconceived notions during students’ clinical placements. The results of our systematic review in this issue of JBI Evidence Synthesis reveal that clinical experiences in RACFs are not always sufficient to provide faculty and staff “a voice to lead”4; that is to say, placements alone are not enough to ignite enthusiasm for aged care or an appreciation for the learning opportunities available in RACFs.5 Faculty and staff must be prepared to share their unique expertise in this setting, confront students’ negativity about aged care, and invest considerable effort into highlighting learning opportunities available in the setting. The need to invest in faculty who have passion and expertise in gerontological nursing is evident, along with the need to prepare staff in RACFs for student placements. The latter is particularly true because staff are largely unregulated and not always considered ideal role models for students.6 The importance of investing in student placements in RACFs is more important than ever. Residential aged care has shouldered much of the impact of COVID-19 and the negative publicity associated with it.7 The public focus on residents’ “social isolation crisis”8(p.460) and chronic understaffing in long-term care make it difficult to advocate for a rewarding and fulfilling career in RACFs. Residents and staff are increasingly experiencing mental health challenges related to the pandemic that have not ameliorated the atmosphere in RACFs.8 In their recent policy brief on the global nursing shortage and necessity of nurse retention, the International Council of Nurses draw attention to the current and potentially long-term effects that the pandemic will have on the nursing workforce in general.9 Their concern is that, as more and more nurses reach the point of burnout from direct and vicarious traumas, there will be severe attrition from the profession.9 The long-term sequalae and attrition rates in RACFs attributable to the pandemic are not yet known, and impacts on student placements are likely to be felt for many years to come. Given that the findings in our review show that staff in RACFs were already feeling undervalued and under-recognized before the pandemic,5 the importance of promoting RACFs as a desirable place to learn and work cannot be overstated. Now more than ever, faculty and staff need to present a united front for new learners and collectively invest in igniting a passion for gerontological nursing and long-term care. Without immediate action at institutional and public policy levels,10 valuable staff may be lost in RACFs, and with them opportunities for strong mentorship to bolster the appeal of nursing in aged care settings. In spite of the many challenges that COVID-19 has highlighted, staff in RACFs have also proved to be incredibly resilient and willing to assume additional responsibilities for residents who were cut off from community supports and families. The need for capacity building and professionalization in RACFs is clear.1 While not disputing the many challenges in making the RACF environment an attractive place to work and in cultivating students’ interest in aged care, the positive impact students can have on the setting should not be overlooked. To this point, another synthesized finding of our review is that staff perceive students as enhancing the RACF environment.5 Students inspire faculty and staff to grow and develop as professionals, offer a reciprocal exchange of knowledge and experiences, and contribute to improved resident care. The value of having students in RACFs must remain a focal point in the ongoing conversation around how to address staffing shortages and recruit nurses to work in aged care environments. Academic institutions have a social responsibility to meet the growing demand for nurses who specialize in the care of older adults, and to provide high-quality clinical placements that ignite students’ passion for this specialty field. In line with the World Health Organization's call for nursing education programs to move away from producing generalist practitioners,11 it is necessary for schools of nursing to embrace gerontology as a specialized and demanding area of nursing practice. Investment in staff is critical as they provide mentorship to students, assist clinical instructors, and can become role models for students to aspire to work alongside.11 Investment in clinical instructors is essential as they nurture the development of future nurse leaders in gerontology and much-needed clinical-academic partnerships.11 Overall, igniting a focus on mentors who share their passion for gerontological nursing with the next generation of nurses will be critical to ensuring the longevity of this important and highly skilled workforce.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».