Reflective practice among nurses working in a teaching hospital: An action research with promising benefits for professional development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objectives: Education and professional development are becoming major issues for the nursing profession, which must adapt to new knowledge in the field of health and aging. This study aimed at developing, field-testing and evaluating the benefits of a reflective practice intervention with nurses caring for hospitalized elders. Method: Based on the Theory of Human Caring and on the Model for Structured Reflection, the study was carried out using an action research approach. Upon completing the reflective practice intervention, the nurses were invited to describe the nursing knowledge and skills that they developed, as well as their perception of reflective practice as a means of improving their professional practice. The study was conducted with 22 nurses working in a teaching hospital. The reflective practice intervention comprised eight thematic workshops each lasting 75 minutes, held at intervals of three weeks, combined with assigned readings and individual exercises. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended questionnaires and focus groups. These data were subjected to thematic content analysis. Results: Results show that nurses developed different skills required in reflective practice, including introspection, open-mindedness, communication and critical analysis. The participants recognized that the reflective practice intervention allowed them to develop empirical, ethical, esthetic, personal and emancipatory knowledge. Moreover, they perceived reflective practice intervention as a means of improving their professional practice as it encouraged breaking established care routines and fostered the integration of best practices. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential of a reflective practice intervention in a clinical setting as a novel professional development approach that valorizes nurses’ experiences and allows the introduction of interventions based on best practice guidelines.
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 | 0.045 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".