Debriefing for Professional Practice Placements in Nursing: A Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to provide an in-depth analysis on the concept of debriefing for professional practice placements within baccalaureate nursing education. BACKGROUND: When conducted properly, debriefing leads to positive outcomes on undergraduate nursing students' learning. However, if debriefing is conducted poorly, it can inhibit students' learning. Clarification of debriefing as a concept in professional practice placements is integral to its development and successful use within undergraduate nursing education. METHOD: The Walker and Avant concept analysis model was used in this study. RESULTS: The analysis identified four defining attributes (description, emotion, analytical reflection, application), three antecedents (an experience, a supportive and respectful environment, and a competent and knowledgeable debrief facilitator), and three consequences (increased knowledge, increased confidence in knowledge, and increased clinical judgment/clinical decision making). CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the defining attributes, antecedents, consequences of debriefing, and empiric referents assists educators in developing successful debriefing frameworks and instrument evaluation criteria for use in professional practice 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 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 | 0.045 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".