三年制高职护生临床学习环境评价的调查研究

目的调查三年制高职护理实习生临床学习环境评价的现状,为护理临床教育提供指导和借鉴。方法采用临床学习环境评价量表对167名三年制高职护理实习生进行调查。结果 1三年制高职护生对临床学习环境评价得分为(164.46±30.11)分,条目均分为(3.92±0.12)分。2各维度条目均分依次为任务定位(4.07±0.07)分,工作氛围和团队精神(3.97±0.13)分,创新性(3.96±0.07)分,护生参与性(3.92±0.09)分,人际关系(3.89±0.07)分,个性化(3.68±0.14)分。3除人际关系维度外,三年制高职护生各维度得分均高于本科护生(P0.01)。结论三年制高职护生对临床学习环境的评价较好,但在个性化培养方面仍然存在不足。建议重视护生对临床学习环境的评价,在提供良好实习环境的基础上注重个性化发展的需要。     

护理本科生对临床学习环境认知的调查

[目的]调查护理本科生对临床学习环境的认知情况,为促进临床学习环境的健康发展、提升护生实习质量提供理论参考。[方法]采用临床学习环境问卷对河南省某医院133名护理本科实习生临床学习环境的认知情况进行调查。[结果]护生对临床学习环境的认知得分为(121.7±1.2)分,参与维度得分最高,不同实习科室及实习时间的护生在师生关系、个性化和创新性方面得分比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05或P0.01),不同带教模式的护生在师生关系、参与、个性化、任务定位方面得分比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]护理本科生对临床学习环境的认知处于中等水平,建议从护生、学校、医院等方面采取措施提高护理本科生对临床学习环境的认知。     

浙江省3所高职院校护生实习现状调查

[目的]了解护生对临床学习环境(氛围)及实习基地环境的评价.[方法]以二级分层抽样方式,应用临床学习环境(氛围)评价量表、护生个人情况、实习基地环境现状问卷对浙江省36所二级甲等以上教学医院实习的537名护生进行问卷调查.[结果]护生对临床学习环境各维度评价,任务定位得分最高(26.68分±3.98分),个性化得分最低(24.50分±5.36分),各条目均分为3.67分,每个条目得分均大于3分.护生对临床学习环境的评价与自己在实习期间表现的满意程度、医院的教学设备、是否按实习大纲排班、护生对临床实习的重视程度、护士长是否能满足护生的排班要求等相关.[结论]护生对临床学习环境的满意度处于中等水平,受到护生个人、实习基地环境、临床护理教师等因素的影响,建议护理教育者和管理者注重人性化管理,营造良好的临床学习环境.     

护生在儿科实习的压力源和压力探讨

临床实习是护生认识专业和形成专业态度的关键时期,环境、人际关系及学习模式改变都会让护生倍感压力。迄今为止,大部分的研究发现,护生在内外科、精神科、急诊或手术室等科室实习承受着中等的压力。临床带教发现学生在儿科实习的压力是不容忽视的。轻度以上的压力会带来生理和心理上的不良影响,严重的导致护生中断学习,给护理事业的发展造成巨大的人才和资金的浪费。本研究探讨护生在儿科实习的压力程度及压力源,以及不同的性别、学历和临床科室护生的压力程度和压力源的差异。给护理临床带教提供信息,使学生能够在人性化的支持性的环境下学习,提高学习效果,为儿科护理培养新的人才。     

探讨高职护生实习前临床护理技能强化培训效果

目的 探讨高职护生实习前进行临床护理技能强化培训的效果。 方法 选取我院高职护生200名,在开始进行临床实习前2周,进行临床护理技能强化培训,并发放问卷调查护生对强化培训的评价。 结果 本次考核人数为200名,考核成绩为(69.88±9.87)分,调查问卷的反馈意见显示大部分护生认为实习前进行临床护理技能的强化培训及情景模拟考核对提高护生对综合能力、病情分析能力和思考能力有很大帮助。 结论 高职护生实习前进行临床护理技能强化培训,能进一步加强护生的理论知识水平及全面提高护生的临床实践技能的整合能力。     

护生对临床学习环境认知的调查

目的调查护生对临床学习环境的认知,找出临床学习环境中存在的问题,为提高护生临床实习效果提供参考依据。方法采用临床学习环境问卷对某大学护理本科生130名和专科生40名进行调查。结果护生对临床学习环境的认知各维度得分高低依次为：师生关系、参与、满意度、任务定位、创新、个性化。结论护生对临床学习环境的总体评价中等稍上,对于临床教学中教学创新、个性化教学的宗旨尚有一定差距,需要广大护理教育者和管理者给予高度重视。     

高职护生临床实习环境满意度调查分析

目的：了解高职护生对临床实习环境的满意度,为提高高职护生临床实习效果提供参考。方法采用护理临床学习环境评价量表调查144名高职护生对临床实习环境的满意度,包括人际关系、工作氛围与团队文化、学生参与性、任务定位、创新性、个性化6个维度,共42个条目。结果高职护生对当前临床学习环境满意的17名,占11．81％;较满意的127名,占88．19％。对临床学习环境各维度评分由高至低分别为任务定位、创新性、人际关系、学生参与性、工作氛围与团队文化、个性化;各维度之间均有较强的相关性（ r值为0．472～0．776;P＜0．01）。三年制高职护生工作氛围及团队文化项目评分低于五年制高职护生,而任务定位、创新性和个性化3个维度评分高于五年制高职护生（t 值分别为-4．107,5．962,5．728,3．138;P＜0．01）。结论高职护生对临床实习满意度比较理想,但对其工作氛围与团队文化方面的培养需要加强。     

临床带教老师对高职实习护生职业素质期望的质性研究

[目的]了解和探讨临床带教老师心目中的高职护生的职业素质期望及目前护生存在的素质缺陷,为护生素质教育提供依据.[方法]采用质性研究现象学方法的半结构访谈方式对12名临床带教老师进行访谈,对访谈资料录音后进行整理并分析结果.[结果]运用分析法,经过反复的比较、归纳、提炼,临床带教老师对高职实习护生的期望为有良好的纪律性,有防范护理风险的意识、学习要有主动性以及要有职业责任感等,同时这也是高职护生在职业素质中的不足之处.[结论]护理专职教师应与临床带教老师密切联系,及时发现实习护生存在的不足,加以必要的引导和干预,减轻临床带教压力.     

实习护生对临床学习环境态度的调查

目的调查实习护生对临床学习环境评价情况,比较本科、大专护生对临床学习环境评价的差异性。方法采用便利抽样的方法对医院115名护生进行临床学习环境问卷的调查。结果实习护生对临床学习环境评价的总分为(142.00±22.43)分,本科和大专护生对临床学习境的评价总分差异无统计学意义(P0.05),但师生关系维度得分差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。护生对临床学习环境评价中师生关系得分最为(25.99±4.09)分;个性化评价得分最低为(21.12±4.29)分。结论护理管理者应积极为护生创造良好的临床学习环境。     

肿瘤专科医院实习护生职业价值观与临床学习环境评价相关性研究

目的：调查肿瘤专科医院护理实习生的护理职业价值观与临床学习环境评价状况,探讨二者之间的关系为实习护生教学管理提供依据。方法：应用一般情况调查表、护理职业价值观量表、护理临床学习环境评价量表对肿瘤专科医院的216名护理实习生进行问卷调查。结果：护理职业价值观总分（100.10±13.80）分,临床学习环境评价总分（157.87±25.07）分。实习护生临床学习环境评价与护理职业价值观呈正相关（r=0.282,P<0.05）。结论：肿瘤医院实习护生职业价值观与临床学习环境评价处于较高水平。他们二者之间是相互促进的。护理教育者和管理者可以通过改善实习护生的实习环境来提高其职业价值。     

Clinical Development Units (Nursing): the western Sydney approach

On 24 September 1997 Western Sydney Area Health Service and the University of Western Sydney, Nepean (Australia) launched a network of nine Clinical Development Units (Nursing). The approach taken towards the development of CDU(N)s in western Sydney differs substantially from those taken elsewhere in terms of preparation for CDU(N) leadership and the role of CDU(N) criteria in the designation ('accreditation') process. The rationale underpinning the western Sydney approach, together with details of a leadership preparation programme, are discussed.     

美国临床护士进阶制度的启示

本文通过介绍美国临床护士进阶制度专业化、高层次、重能力等方面的特点及意义,对我国临床护士发展的途径提出了建议:①设置专科岗位;②强化继续教育;③建立核心能力的标准指标;④探索适合我国国情的护理人力资源配置管理模式。     

Measuring the quality of judgement and decision-making in nursing

AIM: This paper discusses measurement of the quality of judgement and decision-making in nursing research. It examines theoretical and research issues surrounding how to measure judgement accuracy as a component of evaluating decision-making in nursing practice. DISCUSSION: Judgement accuracy is discussed with reference to different methods of measurement, including comparing judgements with independent criteria and inter-judge approaches. Existing research on how judgement accuracy has been measured in nursing practice is examined. Evaluation of decisions is then discussed, including consideration of the process of decision-making and evaluating decision outcomes. Finally, existing research on decision-making in nursing is assessed and the strengths and limitations of different types of measurement discussed. CONCLUSION: We suggests that researchers examining the quality of judgement and decision-making in nursing need to be aware of both the strengths and limitations of existing methods of measurement. We also suggest that researchers need to use a number of different methods, including normative approaches such as Bayes' Theorem and Subjective Expected Utility Theory.     

Availability and development of guidelines in a tertiary teaching hospital

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review existing guidelines in clinical departments and describe their characteristics, development and implementation at a large teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. METHODS: The study was undertaken in two stages. First, from September to November 2005, we reviewed and classified documents from eight departments as clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), clinical procedural protocols (technology and technique) or administrative guidelines. We also collected information about the scope, format and target user of the guidelines. Second, from March to June 2006, we interviewed department staff in seven of eight participating departments about the guidelines' development and implementation. A revised Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation questionnaire was used to collect data in both stages. RESULTS: A total of 368 of 509 documents reviewed were classified as CPGs. Almost 90% of the CPGs had five or fewer pages; nearly 80% had no references; and 90% had no application tools. The CPGs had been developed locally by each individual department. The departments used various methods to collect evidence. In six (albeit a different six departments in each case) of seven departments, clinicians' clinical experience was used in the analysis of the evidence; informal expert consensus was used for formulating recommendations; internal peer review was the major method used to review the guidelines (after drafting); hard copy of guidelines was the major medium used; and provision of educational material was the major implementation strategy. CONCLUSIONS: There was great variation in the number, availability and presentation of guidelines in the departments. There was a lack of standardized methods and narrow skills representation during guideline development.