An Interpretive Description Exploring How Nursing Faculty Teach Pain Assessment and Management in the Clinical Setting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Nurses require competencies in pain assessment and management to provide safe and compassionate care, yet gaps persist in how effectively undergraduate education prepares students for this aspect of practice. There is limited evidence on how clinical nursing faculty teach pain in practice settings or the factors influencing their teaching. Purpose The purpose of my study was to explore how nursing faculty teach pain assessment and management in clinical settings. I examined faculty knowledge, attitudes, and teaching strategies, as well as the influence of clinical and curricular contexts on teaching and learning. I also explored how these elements influenced faculty’s approach to supporting student learning and ensuring that students are prepared to manage pain effectively in practice. Methods I used an interpretive description design with mixed methods. Twenty-three faculty from undergraduate nursing programs in western Canada completed the Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (KASRP). Descriptive statistics identified strengths and gaps in knowledge and attitudes. Fourteen faculty participated in individual interviews and four in a focus group. Transcripts were analyzed using constant comparative analysis. Findings I identified three themes from my analysis: (1) Internal factors influencing teaching included faculty knowledge, confidence, and prior experiences, which shaped how they engaged students in learning. Faculty had strong foundational knowledge but identified gaps in opioid use, dependency, and cancer pain management. The faculty’s confidence in their teaching role or comfort in the clinical environment influenced whether they focused more on tasks or facilitated reflective, person-centred learning. (2) Contextual factors shaping teaching and learning included unit culture, staff attitudes, and student beliefs. Supportive staff created positive role modelling opportunities, while workload pressures, stigma, and uncertainty about opioid use sometimes limited student learning. Faculty’s knowledge of where pain curriculum was taught in the program influenced clinical teaching, as unclear expectations and inconsistent communication between theory and clinical courses left some faculty unsure of what content to emphasize. (3) Preserving the ideal in practice-based learning described how faculty promoted person-centred care and professional identity development related to managing pain. Strategies included using real patient encounters, reflection, debriefing, storytelling, and advocacy to help students integrate theoretical concepts, develop empathy, and strengthen clinical reasoning. Implications My findings highlight opportunities to strengthen pain education in nursing and improve the delivery of pain care. Clinical faculty play a vital role in shaping students’ knowledge, attitudes, and advocacy skills through patient encounters, reflective dialogue, and role modelling of ethical practice. Nursing programs can enhance education by investing in faculty development, clarifying curriculum expectations, and addressing the powerful influence of unit culture on student learning. Supportive clinical environments enable faculty to reinforce compassionate, evidence-informed pain care, while negative norms and stigma create barriers to both learning and patient outcomes. Practical strategies include designating pain education champions, creating accessible teaching resources, and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration to foster consistent, person-centred practices. Future research should evaluate how these strategies, along with initiatives to strengthen unit culture, influence student competencies, faculty teaching practices, and patient outcomes across healthcare settings. Conclusion Faculty play a central role in preparing nursing students to assess and manage pain. Their knowledge, confidence, and teaching approaches, combined with the curriculum structure and clinical context, influence how students learn and apply concepts related to pain. Strengthening faculty preparation, clarifying curriculum expectations, and fostering supportive clinical environments can create consistent learning opportunities and help students deliver ethical, person-centred pain care. Continued research evaluating clinical teaching strategies and faculty development will further advance pain education in nursing.
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 | 0,010 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».