Faculty and nursing staff experiences and perceptions of nursing students’ clinical placements in residential aged care facilities: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to synthesize evidence on the experiences and perceptions of faculty and staff nurses toward nursing students' clinical placements in residential aged care facilities. INTRODUCTION: Nursing education plays an important role in preparing students to provide quality care to older adults. Recent reports suggest that nursing programs across the globe are championing the integration of content on the care of older adults into their curricula as well as recognizing the value of clinical placements that focus exclusively on care for older adults, such as in residential aged care facilities. Student experiences in residential aged care facilities can play a significant role in helping shape professional identity as well as how the setting is viewed. Student interactions with nursing faculty and staff in the residential care learning environment are both recognized as being influential in this process. This review seeks to explore faculty and staff experiences and perceptions of nursing student placements in such facilities. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider qualitative studies that address the experiences and perceptions of faculty and staff nurses who work with nursing students in residential aged care facilities. Studies published in English and from 1995 onward will be sought. METHODS: Two reviewers will independently appraise studies and extract qualitative data using the JBI standardized critical appraisal and extraction instruments. Findings from the review will be categorized according to similarity in meaning, and categories subjected to a meta-synthesis to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".