Search

Background: The recent surge in applications to nursing in the United Kingdom together with the shift towards providing virtual interviews through the use of video platforms has provided an opportunity to review selection methodologies to meet a new set of challenges. However there remains the requirement to use selection methods which are evidence-based valid and reliable even under these new challenges. Method: This paper reports an evaluation study of applicants to nursing and midwifery and reports on how to plan and use online interviews for in excess of 3000 applicants to two schools of nursing in Northern Ireland. Data is reported from Participants, Assessors and Administrators who were asked to complete an online evaluation using Microsoft Forms. Results: A total of 1559 participants completed the questionnaire. The majority were aged 17–20. The findings provide evidence to support the validity and reliability of the online interview process. Importantly the paper reports on the design and implementation of a fully remote online interview process that involved a collaboration with two schools of nursing without compromising the rigour of the admissions process. The paper provides practical, quantitative, and qualitative reasons for concluding that the online remote selection process generated reliable data to support its use in the selection of candidates to nursing and midwifery. Conclusion: There are significant challenges in moving to online interviews and the paper discusses the challenges and reflects on some of the broader issues associated with selection to nursing and midwifery. The aim of the paper is to provide a platform for discussion amongst other nursing schools who might be considering major changes to their admissions processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients who self-harm may consult with primary care nurses, who have a safeguarding responsibility to recognise and respond to self-harm. However, the responses of nursing staff to self-harm are poorly understood, and opportunities to identify self-harm and signpost towards treatment may be missed. It is unclear how to support nursing staff to implement national guidelines. Aims: Among primary care nursing staff to: [1] Examine reported barriers and enablers to nurses' use of, and adherence to, national guidance for self-harm; and [2] Recommend potential intervention strategies to improve implementation of the NICE guidelines. Methods: Twelve telephone interviews partly structured around the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B) were conducted with primary care nurses in the United Kingdom. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used as an analytical framework, while the Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify exemplar behaviour change techniques and intervention functions. Results: Nursing staff identified a need to learn more about risk factors (knowledge), and strategies to initiate sensitive conversations about self-harm (cognitive and interpersonal skills) to support their professional competencies (professional role and identity). Prompts may support recall of the guidance and support a patient centred approach to self-harm within practices (memory, attention, and decision making). GPs, and other practice nurses offer guidance and support (social influences), which helps nurses to navigate referrals and restricted appointment lengths (environmental context and influences). Conclusions: Two converging sets of themes relating to information delivery and resource availability need to be targeted. Nine groups of behaviour change techniques, and five intervention functions offer candidate solutions for future intervention design. Key targets for change include practical training to redress conversational skill gaps about self-harm, the integration of national guidance with local resources and practice-level protocols to support decision-making, and creating opportunities for team-based mentoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nursing competency frameworks describe the competencies; knowledge, skills and attitudes nurses should possess. Countries have their own framework. Knowledge of the content of professional competency frameworks in different countries can enhance the development of these frameworks and international collaborations. Objective: This study examines how competencies and task divisions are described in the current professional competency frameworks for registered nurses (RNs with a Bachelor's degree) in the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and the United States (US). Methods: Qualitative document analysis was conducted using the most recently published professional competency frameworks for registered nurses in the above-mentioned five countries. Results: All the competency frameworks distinguished categories of competencies. Three of the five frameworks explicitly mentioned the basis for the categorization: an adaptation of the CanMEDS model (Netherlands), European directives on the recognition of professional qualifications (Belgium) and an adapted inter-professional framework (US). Although there was variation in how competencies were grouped, we inductively identified ten generic competency domains: (1) Professional Attitude, (2) Clinical Care in Practice, (3) Communication and Collaboration, (4) Health Promotion and Prevention, (5) Organization and Planning of Care, (6) Leadership, (7) Quality and Safety of Care, (8) Training and (continuing) Education, (9) Technology and e-Health, (10) Support of Self-Management and Patient Empowerment. Country differences were found in some more specific competency descriptions. All frameworks described aspects related to the division of tasks between nurses on the one hand and physicians and other healthcare professionals on the other hand. However, these descriptions were rather limited and often imprecise. Conclusions: Although ten generic domains could be identified when analysing and comparing the competency frameworks, there are country differences in the categorizations and the details of the competencies described in the frameworks. These differences and the limited attention paid to the division of tasks might lead to cross-country differences in nursing practice and barriers to the international labour mobility of Bachelor-educated RNs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]