Understanding student preceptorship across healthcare disciplines: The experience of preceptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical preceptorships can help ease the transition of novice nurses into practice in the clinical setting and are considered an essential component of nursing education. Unfortunately, current challenges are hindering the effectiveness of preceptorships. These include a shortage of experienced nurse preceptors willing to take on this role, limited educational opportunities and supportive practices for preceptors, and unsupportive clinical learning environments. While much research has explored the perceptions and experiences of clinical nurse preceptees and preceptors, less attention has focused on multidisciplinary preceptorship models and the similarities and differences among them. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore multidisciplinary student preceptorship models from the experience and perceptions of clinical preceptors. METHODOLOGY: This research project used a qualitative, phenomenological approach to explore multidisciplinary student preceptorship models. METHODS: Data collection took place at a hospital in British Columbia and included preceptors from multiple disciplines. The multidisciplinary departments included in this study were nursing, physiotherapy, respiratory therapy, medical imaging, and dieticians. One participant from each multidisciplinary department was selected, resulting in a purposeful sample of five preceptors. Data were collected through a pre-questionnaire designed to gather background information about participants' experience as preceptors followed by individual in-person interviews. RESULTS: All participants shared the importance of maintaining 1:1 ratios between preceptors and student preceptees during preceptorship placements. However, the duration of these preceptorship placements varied across disciplines. Staffing shortages across healthcare disciplines posed significant challenges to sustaining 1:1 ratios and hindered a preceptors' ability to attend preceptorship educational workshops. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study can be shared and applied across disciplines to enhance student preceptorship models and retain the future generation of healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".