Commencing a nurse education role development journey in a regional Australian health district: Results from a mixed method baseline inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Health service-based nurse education roles (NERs) are well positioned to support the integration of theory and practice in Australian nursing. Despite this they are widely viewed as both poorly described and undervalued. Objective: To establish role parameters, typical activity profiles and views and attitudes about their roles, professional practices & linkages, among a sample of regional Australian nurses in NERs. Methods : Design: Participatory action research baseline inquiry. Participants: Nurse educators (NEs) and clinical nurse educators (CNEs) of the Northern New South Wales Local Health District. Mixed method baseline survey (n = 38, 84% response rate) and focus group study (3 groups, n = 33 participants in total). Results : Most survey participants were active in writing education programme material for Registered Nurses (RNs). Two thirds of survey respondents reported responsibility for medical staff training. CNEs were called upon to provide clinical relief (prompted by high patient acuity, sick leave and meal breaks) to the wards and units significantly more frequently than NEs. Activity logging indicated wide-ranging role domain diversity. Providing education and supporting clinical staff were the most prominent role domains for both NEs and CNEs. Dissatisfaction with aspects of NER was high – no role domain attracted higher than 60% overall satisfaction from this representative sample. Most participants were not research-active and many indicated the need for improvements in their linkages to the nursing academy. Focus group discussion suggested a group who were spread thinly, answerable to multiple governance tiers and intellectually under-supported. No consistent guiding educational philosophy was discernible in relation to participants’ own teaching activity. Conclusions : Principle issues related to the diversity of operational and professional responsibility tied to multiple impacting governance structures. Stable and purposeful linkages to nursing faculties/academia were also lacking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".