Search

Background: Undergraduate nursing students have been documented to experience ethical distress during their clinical training and felt poorly supported in discussing the ethical issues they encountered., Research Aims: This study was aimed at exploring nursing students' perceived opportunity to discuss ethical issues that emerged during their clinical learning experience and associated factors., Research Design: An Italian national cross-sectional study design was performed in 2015-2016. Participants were invited to answer a questionnaire composed of four sections regarding: (1) socio-demographic data, (2) previous clinical learning experiences, (3) current clinical learning experience quality and outcomes, and (4) the opportunity to discuss ethical issues with nurses in the last clinical learning experience (from 0 - 'never' to 3 - 'very much')., Participants and Research Context: Participants were 9607 undergraduate nursing students who were attending 95 different three-year Italian baccalaureate nursing programmes, located at 27 universities in 15 Italian regions., Ethical Considerations: This study was conducted in accordance with the Human Subject Research Ethics Committee guidelines after the research protocol was approved by an ethics committee., Findings: Overall, 4707 (49%) perceived to have discussed ethical issues 'much' or 'very much'; among the remaining, 3683 (38.3%) and 1217 (12.7%) students reported the perception of having discussed, respectively, 'enough' or 'never' ethical issues emerged in the clinical practice. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis explaining 38.1% of the overall variance, the factors promoting ethical discussion were mainly set at the clinical learning environment levels (i.e. increased learning opportunities, self-directed learning, safety and nursing care quality, quality of the tutorial strategies, competences learned and supervision by a clinical nurse). In contrast, being male was associated with a perception of less opportunity to discuss ethical issues., Conclusion: Nursing faculties should assess the clinical environment prerequisites of the settings as a context of student experience before deciding on their accreditation. Moreover, the nursing faculty and nurse managers should also enhance competence with regard to discussing ethical issues with students among clinical nurses by identifying factors that hinder this learning opportunity in daily practice.

Background: Effective performance of clinical handovers should be one of the priorities of nursing education to promote efficient communication skills and ensure patient safety. However, to date, no studies have explored to what extent nursing students are involved in handovers., Objective: To explore nursing students' handover involvement during their clinical rotations and associated factors., Method: This was a secondary analysis of a large national cross-sectional study that involved 9607 undergraduate nursing students in 27 universities across 95 three-year Italian baccalaureate nursing programs. The involvement in the clinical handovers was the end point (from 0, never, to 3, always). A path analysis was performed to identify variables directly and indirectly affecting students' handover involvement., Results: Handover involvement was reported as 'only a little', 'to some extent', and 'always' by 1739 (18.1%), 2939 (30.6%), and 4180 (43.5%) students, respectively; only 749 (7.8%) of students reported never being involved. At the path analysis explaining the 19.1% of variance of nursing students' involvement, some variables emerged that directly increased the likelihood of being involved in handovers. These were being female (β = 0.115, p < 0.001); having children (β = 0.107, p = 0.011); being a 3rd-year student (β = 0.142, p < 0.001) and being a 2nd-year student as compared to a 1st-year student (β = 0.050, p = 0.036); and having a longer clinical rotation (β = 0.015, p < 0.001) in units with high 'quality of the learning environment' (β = 0.279, p < 0.001). Moreover, students who were supervised by the nurse teacher (β = -0.279, p < 0.001), or by a nurse on a daily basis (β = -0.253, p = 0.004), or by the staff (β = -0.190, p < 0.001) reported being less involved in handovers as compared to those students supervised by a clinical nurse. Variables with indirect effects also emerged (model of student's supervision adopted at the unit level, and number of previous clinical rotations attended by students). Moreover, handover involvement explained 11.5% of students self-reported degree of competences learned during the clinical experience., Conclusions: Limiting students' opportunity to be involved in handover can prevent the development of communication skills and the professional socialization processes. Strategies at different levels are needed to promote handover among undergraduate nursing students., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Easy-to-access tools have been demonstrated to improve evidence-based practice (EBP) competences among nursing students. However, students' perception of access to EBP tools (e.g., clinical practice guidelines [CPGs], protocols) is unknown., Aims: To explore: (1) nursing students' opportunity to access EBP tools during their education, and (2) associated factors., Methods: A national cross-sectional study including all Italian nursing programs. Nursing students were deemed eligible according to the following inclusion criteria: Those who (1) were attending or just ended their practical rotation lasting at least 2 weeks at the time of the survey, and (2) expressed through written informed consent their willingness to take part in the study. Participants were asked about their perceived opportunity to access EBP tools during their most recent clinical learning experience (from 0 - not at all to 3 - always). A set of explanatory variables was collected at the individual, nursing program, and regional levels by using a questionnaire., Results: Nine thousand six hundred and seven (91.6%) out of 10,480 nursing students took part in the study. Overall, 4,376 (45.6%) students perceived not at all or only a small opportunity to access EBP tools during their most recent clinical rotation. In the multilevel analysis, factors promoting access were mainly set at the clinical learning environment level (high safety and nursing care quality, high self-directed learning opportunities, high quality of the learning environment, and being supervised by a clinical nurse). In contrast, male gender and lower academic class were associated with a lower perception of accessibility to EBP tools. A consistent variability in the perceived opportunity to access EBP tools emerged across regions., Linking Evidence to Action: Evidence-based decision-making is increasingly expected from nurses. Therefore, nursing faculties should safeguard and continuously improve students' competence regarding EBP, by implementing strategies mainly at the nursing program and regional levels., (© 2018 Sigma Theta Tau International.)

. The Clinical Learning Quality Evaluation Index for nursing students., Introduction: The Italian nursing programs, the need to introduce tools evaluating the quality of the clinical learning as perceived by nursing students. Several tools already exist, however, several limitations suggesting the need to develop a new tool., Aim: A national project aimed at developing and validating a new instrument capable of measuring the clinical learning quality as experience by nursing students., Methods: A validation study design was undertaken from 2015 to 2016. All nursing national programs (n=43) were invited to participate by including all nursing students attending regularly their clinical learning. The tool developed based upon a) literature, b) validated tools already established among other healthcare professionals, and c) consensus expressed by experts and nursing students, was administered to the eligible students., Results: 9606 nursing in 27 universities (62.8%) participated. The psychometric properties of the new instrument ranged from good to excellent. According to the findings, the tool consists in 22 items and five factors: a) quality of the tutorial strategies, b) learning opportunities; c) safety and nursing care quality; d) self-direct learning; e) quality of the learning environment., Conclusions: The tool is already used. Its systematic adoption may support comparison among settings and across different programs; moreover, the tool may also support in accrediting new settings as well as in measuring the effects of strategies aimed at improving the quality of the clinical learning.