Patients’ and parents’ perspectives of and experiences with assessing nursing students’ paediatric clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore patients' and parents' involvement in the formative assessment of undergraduate nursing students' paediatric clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with paediatric patients between 14 to 18 years old and parents who received care from a nursing student while admitted to a paediatric tertiary care hospital in Canada. We analysed the data using qualitative content analysis as well as Lincoln and Guba's criteria for establishing trustworthiness. The Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) checklist was completed for the quality appraisal of this article. FINDINGS: Three categories emerged from the data: 1) how patients and parents are currently involved in the formative assessment of nursing students' paediatric clinical practice; 2) how patients and parents would prefer to be involved in the formative assessment of nursing students' paediatric clinical practice; and 3) the potential benefits and challenges of involving patients and parents in the formative assessment of nursing students' paediatric clinical practice. CONCLUSION: This study provided an understanding of patients' and parents' past encounters with nursing students and the elements of care that they have assessed as well as those that they would prefer to assess and provide feedback on, while considering the potential benefits and challenges of their involvement. The findings of this study will assist clinical instructors in determining how and when to involve patients and parents in the assessment of nursing students. Academic institutions offering nursing programmes should consider the study findings when improving or changing formative assessment strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".