Characteristics of Unsafe Undergraduate Nursing Students in Clinical Practice: An Integrative Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing quality clinical experiences for nursing students is vital to the development of safe and competent professional nurses. However, clinical educators often have difficulty identifying and coping with students whose performance is unsatisfactory. The purposes of this integrative review were to examine the extent and quality of the literature focusing on unsafe nursing students in clinical settings and to describe the characteristics of nursing students considered unsafe in clinical settings. A structured literature search yielded 11 relevant articles: five theoretical articles and six research studies. Analysis of findings revealed three themes: ineffective interpersonal interactions, knowledge and skill incompetence, and unprofessional image. The themes reflected the attitudes, actions, and behaviors that influenced students' ability to develop a safe milieu for client care. The findings provide clarity for early identification of students in need of increased support and facilitate clinical educators in meeting students' learning needs to ensure patient safety.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it