Characteristics and processes of the dedicated education unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to review literature related to the dedicated education unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students, and identify common characteristics and processes for implementing and sustaining this model. INTRODUCTION: Although practice education is central to undergraduate nursing education, evidence-informed practices for learning in the clinical setting remain elusive. Changes to health care over the past decades related to the role and scope of practice for nurses, gradual shifts to community- and population-based care delivery, and expectations for interprofessional practice require forward-looking education models. The dedicated education unit model was developed in 1997 as a potential solution to globally recognized challenges in nursing education amidst discourses of nursing resource scarcity. Despite more than two decades of innovation and expansion, there is still limited understanding of the effectiveness of the dedicated education unit as a solution to those challenges, or for the anticipated benefits for students and patients, through enhanced evidence-informed health care. This analysis of the characteristics and processes of the model is timely for evaluating and sustaining implementation of the dedicated education unit across nursing practice and education settings. INCLUSION CRITERIA: English-only publications related to the dedicated education unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students in baccalaureate and associate degree programs using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research, and quality improvement, program evaluation, and opinion publications were included. METHODS: Using selected keywords including "dedicated education unit," we searched CINAHL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Academic Premier Search, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP Database, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria. We reviewed reference lists for gray literature and additional references. Data were extracted from the included articles and categorized for characteristics and processes. Eighty-two publications from January 1997 to May 2020 were included. The findings were presented descriptively with tables and figures to support the data. RESULTS: Dedicated education unit models were based on five characteristics and four processes. Characteristics of the dedicated education unit model included effective academic-practice partnership, adaptability to diverse contexts, unit culture of educational excellence, responsive and supportive unit leadership, and clarity of roles and responsibilities. Processes included building nurse and faculty capacity, facilitating student learning, communicating regularly at systems and unit levels, and evaluating and sustaining the model. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence demonstrated that the dedicated education unit practice education model is well-established. However, there were existing gaps in this evidence, specifically evaluation and economic analyses. There was also limited attention to long-term sustainability of the model. The common characteristics and processes identified in this review may be used to support planning, implementation, and evaluation, including development and validation of evaluation tools. Although administrative infrastructure was noted as central to the dedicated education unit strategy, it was rarely acknowledged as part of management and thus also requires further study.
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 | 0.024 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".