Search

Background: Mentorship is perceived as vital to attracting, training, and retaining nursing faculty members and to maintaining high-quality education programs. While there is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in academic medicine, the extant state of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia has not been established. We describe a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review to critically appraise the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia., Methods: Studies examining the effectiveness of mentorship interventions with nursing faculty who teach in registered nursing education programs will be included. Mentee, mentor, and nursing education institutional outcomes will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies will be eligible for inclusion, without restrictions on publication status, year of publication, or language. We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC) and gray literature (for example, conference proceedings, key journals, relevant organizational websites) for relevant citations. Using pilot-tested screening and data extraction forms, two reviewers will independently review the studies in three steps: (1) abstract/title screening, (2) full-text screening of accepted studies, and (3) data extraction of accepted studies. Studies will be aggregated for meta-synthesis (qualitative) and meta-analysis (quantitative), should the data permit., Discussion: This study is the first systematic review of existing global evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. It will help identify key evidence gaps and inform the development and implementation of mentorship interventions. The mentorship outcomes that result from this review could be used to guide the practice of mentorship to increase positive outcomes for nursing faculty and the students they teach and ultimately effect improvements for the patients they care for. This review will also identify key considerations for future research on mentorship in nursing academia and the enhancement of nursing science.

Aim: To explore undergraduate nursing students' understanding of fundamental care and identify educational leadership opportunities to deepen students' understanding of fundamental care concepts. Design: Sequential‐explanatory mixed methods study. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional survey (n = 202) and focus groups (n = 24) to explore undergraduate nursing students' ability to identify fundamental care needs. All data were collected between November 2020 and April 2021. Survey data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics and focus group data were thematically analysed. Results: Year One students scored significantly lower in their ability to identify fundamental care needs compared with students in other years, even after controlling for route, gender and age. Post‐degree students scored significantly higher than direct entry or transfer students. Students ≤19 years of age had significantly lower scores compared with students ≥25 years of age. Our focus group findings highlighted that students were often unable to define fundamental care, but they identified learning about various components of fundamental care in a variety of ways. While students understood that fundamental care was required in all settings, they were challenged in providing this care in acute and virtual settings. Students shared several suggestions to support fundamental care skills development across the curriculum. Conclusions: There is a need for a clear definition and description of the fundamentals of care that is used consistently by faculty, students and curriculum documents. It is important to encourage and support educators to share real‐world nursing stories, offer students time to share their personal experiences, develop creative learning opportunities and foster student reflection to deepen students' understanding of the fundamentals of care. Impact Educators need support to meaningfully incorporate fundamentals of care learning opportunities across multiple care settings. Educational leaders can use these findings to develop or adapt their curricula to support fundamental care skill development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To synthesize the empirical and theoretical literature on change fatigue in nursing, including how change fatigue affects nurses, the nursing profession and strategies to prevent and overcome it. Background: Change fatigue refers to the overwhelming feelings of stress, exhaustion and burnout associated with rapid and continuous change across healthcare organizations. Change fatigue can affect nurses' wellbeing, yet there is a distinct lack of literature which synthesizes the relationship between cumulative organizational change and nurses' wellbeing. Design: Integrative review following Toronto and Remington and Whittemore and Knafl methodology. Data Sources: Searches were conducted in CINAHL, Embase, Medline, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, Business Source Complete and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global in January 2022. Review Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify literature on change fatigue in nursing. Included literature were critically appraised for methodological quality. Data from each article were abstracted and thematically analysed. Results: Twenty‐six articles were included in this review, including 14 empirical studies, 10 theoretical papers and two literature reviews. Five main themes described in the literature included: definitions, preceding factors, associated behaviours, consequences and mitigation strategies for change fatigue. Conclusion: This review highlights the impact of rapid and continuous change on nurses and nursing practice. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between change fatigue and burnout, understand how and why nurses withdraw or avoid change, and to develop a metric to measure change fatigue when considering new change initiatives. Impact Findings from this review generated an improved understanding of how change fatigue affects nurses, the nursing profession and strategies to prevent and overcome it. This paper provides practical recommendations for future research, direction for nursing educators and leaders, and encourages nurses to practice political agency with change management. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was an integrative review of the literature therefore no patient or public contribution was necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of nurse managers during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Background: There is a growing body of knowledge about the experiences of clinical nurses during COVID‐19. However, there is less evidence about the experiences of nurse managers during the pandemic. Methods: Eight nurse managers, from acute care and outpatient settings, completed semistructured interviews about how their roles had changed during the pandemic, how they felt about these changes, and what had gone well or been difficult. Each participant was interviewed once, for 20–60 min. We used thematic analysis methods to analyse the interview transcripts. Findings Nurse managers had to coordinate care in a context of uncertainty and guidance that changed frequently. Participants found that their roles and responsibilities either expanded to include more duties, or they were asked to take on a completely new role, with no orientation or training. Nurse managers were expected to provide support to their staff and patients, but did not necessarily receive support themselves. Participants were expected to plan simultaneously for care during the pandemic and for a return to normal working conditions. These factors contributed to challenging and difficult participant experiences of managing during COVID‐19. Conclusion: Nurse managers' experiences during COVID‐19 are influenced by changes to their roles and the support they received. Nurse managers continue to support high‐quality care despite working a difficult context. Implications for nursing management: Where possible, nurse managers can be supported to extend their roles or receive additional education and support if they are required to take on new responsibilities. Nurse managers require support in order to be a resource for their staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursing leaders are increasingly required to create and implement innovative solutions to address challenges in the workplace. However, the present-day education of graduate nurses may not adequately prepare them for entrepreneurial approaches to problem solving required in today’s complex healthcare environments. To fill this gap, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a Healthcare Grand Challenge course for graduate nurses interested in developing their leadership skills. Following the course, students were invited to participate in a qualitative research study to explore their experiences and perceptions of the course and identify how they used the knowledge and skills developed through the course in their leadership practices. This study provides key lessons for future offerings of grand challenge courses while highlighting the influence of grand challenge courses on current and future nursing leadership practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Nursing education institutions have issued recurring, global calls for mentorship; however, evidence-based program development guidance is scarce. To date, there are no comprehensive syntheses of current mentorship models, objectives, and program components to inform mentorship program development in nursing academia. The purpose of this review is to identify published articles that (1) described models for mentoring programs for academic nurses, and (2) described the objectives and core components of these programs. Method A systematic search of five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO) was conducted to identify articles describing mentorship programs for academic nurses. Program objectives and components were extracted and narratively synthesized to identify important patterns and themes across mentorship programs. Results A total of 34 articles describing 30 mentorship programs were identified. Mentoring models included dyad, peer, group, online, distance, learning partnerships, highly relevant, and constellation mentorship models. Key mentoring program components included: (a) having a program coordinator; (b) orientation to the program; (c) selectively matching dyads; (d) developing clear purpose and goals; (e) frequent communication between mentors and mentees; (f) faculty development workshops; (g) mentee reflective journaling; (h) facilitation of socialization and networking opportunities; and (i) administrative support. Conclusions In synthesizing the mentorship literature in academic nursing it is apparent that mentorship models and mentorship components look different in every setting with no empirical evidence that one mentorship model is more effective than another. Given the significant resources required to support mentorship innovations, understanding the benefits and shortcomings of various mentorship components can help ensure scarce resources are invested in the most effective mentorship strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The aim of this study was to report on a mixed methods systematic review that critically examines the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. Background Nursing education institutions globally have issued calls for mentorship. There is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in other disciplines, but the extant state of the evidence in nursing academia is not known. A comprehensive review of the evidence is required. Design A mixed methods systematic review. Data sources Five databases ( MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Psyc INFO) were searched using an a priori search strategy from inception to 2 November 2015 to identify quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Grey literature searches were also conducted in electronic databases (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Index to Theses) and mentorship conference proceedings and by hand searching the reference lists of eligible studies. Review methods Study quality was assessed prior to inclusion using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. A convergent qualitative synthesis design was used where results from qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were transformed into qualitative findings. Mentorship outcomes were mapped to a theory-informed framework. Results Thirty-four studies were included in this review, from the 3001 records initially retrieved. In general, mentorship had a positive impact on behavioural, career, attitudinal, relational and motivational outcomes; however, the methodological quality of studies was weak. Conclusion This review can inform the objectives of mentorship interventions and contribute to a more rigorous approach to studies that assess mentorship outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]