Impact of Continuing Education on Nurse Satisfaction and Confidence – Quality Improvement Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study investigated the impact of continuing education on nurse satisfaction and confidence, aiming to provide recommendations for healthcare organizations to enhance nurse support and retention through educational programs. Objective: This research study aimed to understand if continuing education increases job satisfaction and confidence. Method: A quality improvement research study was conducted for approximately 2.5 weeks and included 10 registered nurses. An anonymous 10-question survey was distributed via SurveyMonkey among registered nurses over 18 of varying expertise levels within a healthcare organization in urban Ontario, Canada, to gather feedback on satisfaction, confidence, and retention. Data Analysis: Microsoft Excel Data Analysis program and SurveyMonkey Analysis programs were used for data analysis to quantify responses. Results: Nurses with 2-5 years of experience, 5-10 years of experience, and greater than 10 years of experience reported at a rate of 90% that continuing education influences job satisfaction and clinical confidence while 10% of nurses surveyed reported that continued education influenced only clinical confidence. 80% of the nurses surveyed revealed they were satisfied (20%) or very satisfied (60%) within their current workplace. Conclusion: The survey was able to identify that 90% of nurses reported that continuing education impacted their job satisfaction and clinical confidence, only 10% reported that continuing education impacted their clinical confidence only. 80% of all surveyed nurses were satisfied or very satisfied with their current workplace and 70% plan to continue their employment with their current employer. Thus, nurses who reported continuing education impacted their job satisfaction and/or confidence, also suggest that a lack of continuing education heavily contributed to their intent to stay in their current workplace.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".