Self-centeredness or patient-centeredness–final year nursing students’ experiences of learning at a clinical education ward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Different types of clinical education wards with the aim of facilitating transition from student to professional have been established giving students more autonomy and responsibility. Studies report positive effects but deeper understanding concerning how clinical education wards can contribute to learning for students nearing graduation is needed. Aim : To explore final year nursing students’ experiences of learning when they are supported to take care of patients independently. Methods : The context for this study was a clinical education ward for nursing students at a university hospital in Sweden. Individual and group interviews with 18 students of 29 eligible students were conducted after their clinical practice. The data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis with a focus on students’ experiences of their encounters with patients, supervisors, students and other professionals. Results : The two main themes appeared as important aspects influencing final year students’ learning, uncertainty as a threshold and experiencing engagement. Sub-themes characterizing uncertainty as a threshold were self-centeredness and ambivalence describing the patient from the perspective of performing nursing tasks. Sub-themes characterizing experiencing engagement were creating mutual relationship and professional development. Caring for patients with extensive need for nursing care helped the students to become patient-centered and overcome the threshold, experience engagement and authenticity in learning the profession. Conclusions : A clinical education ward may enhance the students’ experience of both external and internal authenticity enabling meaningful learning and professional development. It is important to acknowledge final year nursing students’ need for both challenges and support in the stressful transition from student to professional. Therefore, an explicit pedagogical framework based on patient-centered care and encouraging students to take responsibility should be used to help the students to overcome self-centeredness and to focus on the patients’ needs and nursing care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".