Virtual Reflection Group Meetings as a Structured Active Learning Method to Enhance Perceived Competence in Critical Care: Focus Group Interviews With Advanced Practice Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced practice nurses (APNs) are in high demand in critical care units. In Norway, APNs are educated at the master's degree level and acquire the competence to ensure the independent, safe, and effective treatment of patients in constantly and rapidly changing health situations. APNs' competence embraces expert knowledge and skills to perform complex decision-making in the clinical context; therefore, it is essential that educational institutions in nursing facilitate learning activities that ensure and improve students' achievement of the required competence. In clinical practice studies of APN education, face-to-face reflection group (FFRG) meetings, held on campus with the participation of a nurse educator and advanced practice nursing students (APNSs), are a common learning activity to improve the competence of APNSs. Although FFRG meetings stimulate APNSs' development of required competencies, they may also result in unproductive academic discussions, reduce the time that APNSs spend in clinical practice, and make it impossible for nurse preceptors (NPs) to attend the meetings, which are all challenges that need to be addressed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address the challenges experienced in FFRG meetings by implementing virtual reflection group (VRG) meetings and to explore the experiences of APNSs, NPs, and nurse educators in VRG meetings as an active learning method supported by technology to stimulate students' development of the required competence to become APNs in critical care. METHODS: This study adopted a qualitative explorative design with 2 focus group interviews and used inductive content analysis to explore the collected data. RESULTS: The main finding is that reflection group meetings supported by technology resulted in a better-structured active learning method. The VRG meeting design allowed APNSs to spend more time in clinical practice placements. The APNSs and NPs experienced that they participated actively and effectively in the meetings, which led to a perceived increase in competence. The APNSs also perceived an improved learning experience compared with their prior expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Users perceived that the implemented novel teaching design supported by technology, the VRG meeting, was a more effective method than FFRG meetings on campus to develop APNSs' required competence in critical care. The VRG was also perceived as an improved method to solve the challenges encountered in FFRG meetings. Specifically, the APNSs felt that they were prepared to undertake complex decision-making with a higher level of analytic cognition in a clinical context and to lead professional discussions in the ward. This developed teaching design can easily be adapted to diverse educational programs at various levels of professional education.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".