MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236160745 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00122

Nursing students’ experiences with clinical placement in residential aged care facilities: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

2020· review· en· W4236160745 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health NetworkSt. Joseph's HospitalUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingQualitative researchAged careMedicinePsychologyMedical educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the best available evidence on nursing students’ experiences with clinical placement in residential aged care facilities. Introduction: Nursing education programs play a key role in preparing future nurses to care for the growing number of older adults who will require health care. A key component of this preparation involves ensuring that curricula optimize student learning through carefully designed clinical learning practice experiences. Residential aged care facilities provide students with opportunities to work exclusively with older adults. Studies that address clinical placements in residential aged care facilities highlight both the benefits and concerns of student learning and professional development. Insight into student experiences of clinical placements in residential aged care facilities can help inform nursing curricula and contribute to a better understanding of how best to prepare students to care for an aging population. Inclusion criteria: This review considered all qualitative studies that included undergraduate and diploma nursing students. Nursing students included individuals or groups identified as nursing students independent of the type of program, level of learning, or time spent in the setting. Methods: A three-step search strategy was used to identify English language qualitative primary research studies. Two reviewers independently appraised the included studies using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Key findings were extracted and classified as unequivocal or credible. Results: Fourteen qualitative studies were included, published between 2003 and 2018. A total of 53 findings were extracted and aggregated into seven categories. From the seven categories, two synthesized findings were developed: the evolution of learning and embracing opportunity. Conclusion: This review captured student experiences of clinical placement in residential aged care facilities. The findings highlight the importance of students entering the setting with knowledge of how to care for older adults and being able to respond to challenging resident behavior. Equally important is the need for students to understand the roles and contributions of all care staff in the setting, including nurses and unregulated care providers. Although the residential aged care setting can be a challenging learning environment for students, it also offers opportunities for student growth and professional development, especially when there are clearly articulated learning outcomes and appropriate role models available.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it