MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917015297 · doi:10.1111/jocn.14841

Refining nursing practice through workplace learning: A grounded theory

2019· article· en· W2917015297 on OpenAlexaff
Darlaine Jantzen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsCamosun College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryNursingCompetence (human resources)ApprehensionTheoretical samplingHealth careNurse educationQualitative researchNursing processPsychologyParticipant observationContext (archaeology)MedicineSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine how experienced registered nurses in direct patient care learn within the constantly changing contemporary healthcare environment. The key objectives were to examine educational interactions amongst workplace, nurse and nursing practice, with a focus on the influence of context. BACKGROUND: Registered nurses must maintain competence throughout their careers. The related ongoing learning is triggered by external demands and nurses' internal motivation. Experienced nurses, poised to retire, have worked through the recent tumultuous changes in health care and therefore provide insight into how they sustained excellent patient care. DESIGN: The methodology for this study was a grounded theory informed by symbolic interactionism. EQUATOR guidelines for qualitative research (COREQ) applied. METHODS: Data collection entailed semi-structured interviews with experienced nurses across diverse settings and participant observation on two acute care units. Analysis of data was conducted using three-level coding, constant comparison, theoretical sampling and extensive memoing. RESULTS: Refining nursing practice begins during nursing education and early employment. Getting grounded involves establishing key capabilities, specifically becoming self-aware, setting high standards, cultivating healthy apprehension and seeing the whole patient picture. Three catalysts for workplace learning are mentor-guides, workplace camaraderie and a highly functional workplace team. Refining nursing practice includes both formal and informal learning; however, significant nursing expertise is developed through puzzling and enquiring, an iterative process of learning while nursing. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating the development of capabilities for nurses' workplace learning during nursing education and early work experiences contributes to excellent patient care. Healthcare organisations need to value and support the unique contributions of mentor-guides in the clinical setting and promote individuals' development of expertise by nurturing camaraderie and developing highly functional workplace teams. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Attending to the processes and catalysts for nurses' workplace learning will contribute to excellent patient 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207