From apprehension to advocacy: a qualitative study of undergraduate nursing student experience in clinical placement in residential aged care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undergraduate nursing placement in aged care is forecast to grow in importance with the increasing aging population, and to help to reverse trends in student lack of interest in gerontology careers. However, there is a need to better understand undergraduate nursing students' experiences on placement with older adults, as well as key features of quality learning within residential aged care. The aim of this study was to explore how nursing students understand learning within residential aged care. METHODS: This qualitative study used a participatory action research approach, and this paper reports on the thematic analysis of data from one cycle of undergraduate nursing placement in a Canadian residential aged care setting, with two groups of 7-8 students and two university instructors. Staff and residents at the research site were also included. Researchers interviewed both groups of students prior to and after placement. Instructors, staff and residents were interviewed post placement. RESULTS: Students commenced placement full of apprehension, and progressed in their learning by taking initiative and through self-directed learning pathways. Engagement with residents was key to student learning on person-centred care and increased understanding of older adults. Students faced challenges to their learning through limited exposure to professional nursing roles and healthcare aide/student relationship issues. By placement end, students had gained unique insights on resident care and began to step into advocacy roles. CONCLUSIONS: In learning on placement within residential aged care, students moved from feelings of apprehension to taking on advocacy roles for residents. Better formalizing routes for students to feedback their unique understandings on resident care could ensure their contributions are better integrated and not lost when placements end.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".