MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605757800 · doi:10.17483/2368-6669.1100

Accompagner les infirmières et les étudiantes dans la réflexion sur des situations de soins : Un modèle pour les formateurs en soins infirmiers

2017· article· en· W2605757800 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Patrick Lavoie, Louise Boyer, Jacinthe Pépin, Johanne Goudreau, Odile Fima

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Advancement in Nursing Education - Avancées en formation infirmière · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
FundersRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du Québec
KeywordsDebriefingPsychologyContext (archaeology)Experiential learningClinical judgmentProcess (computing)Nursing careNursingMedical educationPedagogySocial psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reform of nursing education programs and their gradual shift to a competency-based approach lays the groundwork for the introduction of active teaching strategies. These strategies focus on exposing learners to situations similar to those they will encounter in their professional practice, while encouraging them to reflect on their learning processes. This approach is akin to the process by which clinical judgment develops, which would build on reflection on past clinical experiences (Tanner, 2006). This article defines a model to support the development of clinical judgment among nurses and student nurses by having them reflect on various care scenarios. The proposed model draws on Dewey’s theory of experiential learning and reflective thinking (1909/2007, 1938/1997) and includes elements of Tanner’s model of clinical judgment in nursing (2006). An educator helps learners through the reflective process by asking open-ended questions. For learners, the reflection includes communicating their impressions of a difficult care situation, arriving at and expanding on one or more hypotheses to explain the situation, and testing relevant responses to a given situation. Throughout the process, learners are asked to reflect on how their beliefs about their nursing role, previous nursing and personal experiences, emotions and formal knowledge is impacting their response to the situation in question. This article illustrates how the model under consideration can be incorporated into different active teaching strategies, including the debriefing process associated with clinical simulations or within the context of ongoing clinical training. Research evidence shows that the model’s implementation is feasible, acceptable and beneficial and as such, an aid to learning. The strategy may also prove useful in other active learning environments, one of these being clinical placements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality Advancement in Nursing Education - Avancées en formation infirmièreSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207