Search

Aim: To explore undergraduate nursing and midwifery student perspectives of using digital patient systems on clinical placements. Design: This was an interpretative qualitative design study. Methods: Undergraduate nursing and midwifery students in a large Australian metropolitan university were invited to participate in two focus groups from April to June 2019. Twenty (20) students participated and data on their perspective of using digital systems on placement were collected. Thematic analysis using NVivo 12 software was undertaken. Findings: Students identified benefits and challenges when moving between paper records and digital systems. Whilst paper reporting was more efficient for some processes, the students recognised the advantages of digital technology, such as enabling greater confidentiality and consolidation of patient data in one place. However, they also reported difficulty with student access and the size of the portal digital workstation at the bedside. Generally, the lack of preparation and access was considered frustrating and mitigated some of the benefits described when using digital systems. Conclusions: Nursing and midwifery students prefer to be prepared for both paper and digital record keeping. Whilst students identify the benefits of digital platforms, not having direct access mitigates the benefits of these systems. Students identified the use of simulation and interactive modules prior to commencement of clinical practice to enable them to feel more confident with using the systems in patient care. Impact: Health care students require direct access to digital health platforms whilst on clinical placement to facilitate their learning. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are in a unique position to work with health care providers to better prepare health care professionals, including nurses and midwives, to work with digital health care systems. Further research is needed to develop the educational preparation for nurses, midwives, and other health care professionals to work with digital systems in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)