The Experience of Making a Mistake in Clinical Practice from a Nursing Student Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Making a mistake in clinical practice is a difficult experience for seasoned practitioners as well as nursing students. Although there has been some research in examining the phenomenon of errors/mistakes in experienced practitioners there is nothing that examines nursing students. This issue is important from both a patient safety perspective as well as an educational perspective. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine how undergraduate nursing students experience the process of making a mistake in their clinical practice. Design: A Glaserian grounded theory approach was the initial method utilized although a constructivist approach evolved as the analysis progressed. The following research questions guided this study: 1. What is the experience of making a mistake in clinical practice from a nursing student perspective? 2. What factors and conditions contribute to student error? 3. What recommendations do nursing students have for faculty/staff when dealing with student error in clinical practice? Sample: A purposive sampling technique was used. The sample consisted of second, third, and fourth year nursing students in two institutions. Inclusion criteria were that participants would have made at least one mistake in their clinical practice. The sample consisted of sixteen participants: seven from a large Canadian university and nine from a small Canadian university. Data Collection and Analysis: The process of sampling and concurrent data collection transpired as advocated by the principle of constant comparison. Analysis was accomplished by the dynamic process of open, selective and theoretical coding. Findings: ‘Living the mistake experience’ was the core variable identified in the theoretical model of making a mistake. The theoretical model captures the process that participants experienced during and after they made a mistake.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".