Teaching strategies and activities used for students’ clinical placement in residential aged care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to examine and map current knowledge of teaching strategies and activities used with nursing students during clinical placements in residential aged care facilities. INTRODUCTION: Residential aged care facilities provide opportunities for nursing students to develop skills and interest in caring for older adults. Studies that address students' clinical placements in these settings highlight the benefits of and concerns with their experiences. Insight into the state of knowledge regarding teaching strategies used in residential aged care facilities could benefit nursing education programs and help to ensure student learning is maximized. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will consider research and narrative reports on teaching activities and strategies used by nursing faculty and residential aged care facility staff in teaching nursing students. The concepts of interest include planned and intentional activities and strategies used to facilitate student learning and student clinical experiences. A clinical experience is defined as when a student enters a residential aged care facility and is assigned an individual or individuals to care for. METHODS: This scoping review will aim to locate published and unpublished literature employing a three-step search strategy. Only papers published in English from 1992 onward will be included. Data extracted from eligible papers will include details on the participants, context, strategy, activity and outcomes. Extracted data will be reported in a tabular form and presented narratively to address the review objective.
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 | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".