Multisource Reflections on Assessment of Nursing Students' First Clinical Practice and Predictions for 360-Degree Assessment: A Qualitative Study

Yıl 2023, , 273 - 281, 28.12.2023

Çiğdem Bayzat , Şenay Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer

https://doi.org/10.31125/hunhemsire.1174560

Öz

Aim: This study was conducted to explain the current situation regarding the assessment of nursing students during their first clinical practice and to determine the views on 360-degree assessment, an innovative approach, from a multi-source perspective.
Material and Methods: In this qualitative case study, individual interviews were conducted with nine instructors, focus group interviews were conducted with twenty-three nursing students, and documents were examined. Data were collected between 7 August 2019–22 November 2020. The data were analyzed in line with the descriptive analysis approach.
Results: While reflections on the current situation were generated in line with the findings obtained from three data sources, the context of predictions on 360-degree assessment was generated in line with the findings obtained from interviews with students and instructors. Reflections on the current situation context are analyzed under assessors, competencies, methods and tools, feedback, challenges, and suggestions themes. Predictions on 360-degree assessment context are analyzed under assessors, frequency, tools, setting, benefits, and challenges themes.
Conclusion: According to the results of the data triangulation, the most important issues regarding the assessment of nursing students during first clinical practice were the high student/instructor ratio and the fact that only instructors are officially assessors. Instructors and students approached positively to the 360-degree assessment, but they also shared some concerns.

Anahtar Kelimeler

360 assessment, Clinical placement, Multisource feedback, Nursing education, Qualitative research

Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin İlk Klinik Uygulamalarının Değerlendirilmesine İlişkin Çok Kaynaklı İncelemeler ve 360-Derece Değerlendirmeye ilişkin Öngörüler: Nitel Bir Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, çok kaynaklı bir bakış açısıyla hemşirelik öğrencilerinin ilk klinik uygulamaları sırasında yapılan değerlendirmeye ilişkin mevcut durumun açıklanması ve yenilikçi bir yaklaşım olan 360-derece değerlendirmeye ilişkin görüşlerin belirlenmesi amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Durum çalışması desenine sahip bu nitel çalışmada dokuz öğretim elemanı ile bireysel görüşme, yirmi üç hemşirelik öğrencisi ile odak grup görüşmesi ve doküman incelemesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler 7 Ağustos 2019-22 Kasım 2020 tarihleri arasında toplanmıştır. Veriler betimsel analiz yaklaşımı doğrultusunda analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Mevcut durum üzerine yansımalar bağlamı üç veri kaynağından elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda oluşturulurken, 360-derece değerlendirme üzerine öngörüler bağlamı öğrenciler ve öğretim elemanları ile yapılan görüşmelerden elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda oluşturulmuştur. Mevcut durum üzerine yansımalar bağlamı değerlendiriciler, yetkinlikler, yöntemler ve araçlar, geribildirim, zorluklar ve öneriler; 360-derece değerlendirme üzerine öngörüler bağlamı ise değerlendiriciler, sıklık, araçlar, ortam, faydalar ve zorluklar temaları altında incelenmiştir.
Sonuç: Üç veri kaynağından elde edilen bulgulara göre ilk klinik uygulama sırasında hemşirelik öğrencilerinin değerlendirilmesinde öğrenci/öğretim elemanı oranının yüksek olması ve sadece öğretim elemanlarının yer alması en önemli sorunlar arasında yer almaktadır. Öğretim elemanları ve öğrenciler 360-derece değerlendirmeye olumlu yaklaşmakla birlikte bazı endişelerini de paylaşmışlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

360 değerlendirme, Çok kaynaklı geribildirim, Hemşirelik eğitimi, Klinik uygulama, Nitel araştırma

Kaynakça

• 1. Woodley LK. Hemşirelikte klinik öğretim. Arslan S, Kurban NK, editors. Hemşirelikte öğretim ve eğiticinin rolü: Eğitim, değerlendirme ve müfredat geliştirmede en iyi uygulama için eksiksiz rehber. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık; 2015.p.167-88.
• 2. Cronenwett L, Sherwood G, Barnsteiner J, Disch J, Johnson J, Mitchell P, et al. Quality and safety education for nurses. Nurs Outlook. 2007;55:122-31.
• 3. Wu XV, Enskär K, Lee CCS, Wang W. A systematic review of clinical assessment for undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35:347-59.
• 4. Immonen K, Oikarainen A, Tomietto M, Kaariainen M, Tuomikoski AM, Kaucic BM, et al. Assessment of nursing students' competence in clinical practice: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;100:103414.
• 5. Oermann MH, Gaberson KB. Clinical evaluation. Evaluation and testing in nursing education. 6th ed. The United States of America: Springer Publishing Company; 2021. p.253-308.
• 6. Bonnel W. Clinical performance evaluation. Billings DM, Halstead JA, editors. Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty. 5th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2019. p.494-514.
• 7. Amini A, Bayat R, Amini K. Barriers to clinical education from the perspective of nursing students in Iran: An integrative review. Arch Pharma Pract. 2020;11:73-9.
• 8. Arkan B, Ordin Y, Yilmaz D. Undergraduate nursing students' experience related to their clinical learning environment and factors affecting to their clinical learning process. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;29:127-32.
• 9. Jasemi M, Whitehead B, Habibzadeh H, Zabihi RE, Rezaie SA. Challenges in the clinical education of the nursing profession in Iran: A qualitative study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;67:21-6.
• 10. Shadadi H, Sheyback M, Balouchi A, Shoorvazi M. The barriers of clinical education in nursing: A systematic review. Biomedical Research. 2018;29:3616-23.
• 11. Sercekus P, Baskale H. Nursing students' perceptions about clinical learning environment in Turkey. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;17:134-8.
• 12. Gonzalez-Gil MT, Parro-Moreno AI, Oter-Quintana C, Gonzalez-Blazquez C, Martinez-Marcos M, Casillas-Santana M, et al. 360-Degree evaluation: Towards a comprehensive, integrated assessment of performance on clinical placement in nursing degrees: A descriptive observational study. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;95:104594.
• 13. Sadeghi T, Loripoor M. Usefulness of 360 degree evaluation in evaluating nursing students in Iran. KJME. 2016;28:195-200.
• 14. Hemalatha R, Shakuntala BS. Using multiple assessors to evaluate core competencies of nursing students: A 360 evaluation approach. NUJS. 2013;3:13-7.
• 15. Rodgers KG, Manifold C. 360‐degree feedback: Possibilities for assessment of the ACGME core competencies for emergency medicine residents. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:1300-4.
• 16. Bayzat Ç, Kilikcier ŞS. Hemşirelik ve tıp öğrencilerinin klinik öğretiminde 360° değerlendirme: Kapsam odaklı inceleme. HUHEMFAD. 2021;8:134-43.
• 17. Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. Standards for Accreditation of Bacclaureate and Graduate Nursing Programs [Internet]. 2018 [Access Date 6 February 2021]. Access Address: https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/CCNE/PDF/Standards-Final-2018.pdf.
• 18. Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing. ACEN Accreditation Manual – Section I: General Information [Internet]. 2020 [Access Date 6 February 2021]. Access Address: https://www.acenursing.org/acen-accreditation-manual-general-information/.
• 19. Canadian Association Schools of Nursing. CASN Accreditation Program Standards [Internet]. 2014 [Access Date 6 February 2021]. Access Address: https://www.casn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014-FINAL-EN-Accred-standards-March-311.pdf.
• 20. Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Nursing Education Programs. Self-Assessment Report Preparation Guide [Internet]. 2019 [Access Date 18 January 2021]. Access Address: https://www.hepdak.org.tr/doc/b4_v5.pdf.
• 21. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349-57.
• 22. Hacettepe University. Nursing Programme [Internet]. 2020 [Access Date 24 January 2021]. Access Address: http://akts.hacettepe.edu.tr/program_detay.php?birim_ref=AKDBRM_0000000000000000000000218&birim_kod=567&prg_oid=PRGRAM_0000000000000000000000030&prg_kod=567&programduzey=2&submenuheader=2.
• 23. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. Nitel araştırma desenleri. Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri 11 ed. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık; 2016.
• 24. Almalkawi I, Jester R, Terry L. Exploring mentors' interpretation of terminology and levels of competence when assessing nursing students: An integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;69:95-103.
• 25. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing. Nursing Faculty Shortage [Internet]. 2020 [Access Date 26 January 2021]. Access Address: https://www.aacnnursing.org/news-information/fact-sheets/nursing-faculty-shortage.
• 26. TexasBON. Ratio of Faculty to Students in Clinical Learning Experiences [Internet]. 2013 [Access Date 26 January 2021]. Access Address: https://www.bon.texas.gov/pdfs/education_pdfs/education_nursing_guidelines/3.8Clinical_Learning_Experiences/3-8-2-a.pdf.
• 27. Council of Higher Education. Nursing undergraduate education workshop [Internet]. 2017 [Access Date 26 January 2021]. Access Address: https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/Hemsirelik_Lisans_Egitimi_Calistayi_Sonuc_Raporu.pdf.
• 28. Esmaeili M, Cheraghi MA, Salsali M, Ghiyasvandian S. Nursing students' expectations regarding effective clinical education: A qualitative study. Int J Nurs Pract. 2014;20:460-7.
• 29. Kol E, Ince S. Determining the opinions of the first-year nursing students about clinical practice and clinical educators. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;31:35-40.
• 30. Brown JM, Lowe K, Fillingham J, Murphy PN, Bamforth M, Shaw NJ. An investigation into the use of multi-source feedback (MSF) as a work-based assessment tool. Med Teach. 2014;36:997-1004.
• 31. Kamal Z, Iqbal U, Akhlaq S, Adil A, Ramzan M. Does use of multi-source feedback (MSF) affect the attitudes of postgraduate trainees: Experience of a teaching hospital. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2017;67:439-45.
• 32. Lipsett PA, Harris I, Downing S. Resident self-other assessor agreement: Influence of assessor, competency, and performance level. Arch Surg. 2011;146:901-6.
• 33. Osorio SN, Ward MJ, Siew L, Bylund C, Konopasek L. Assessment of pediatric residents’ communication and interpersonal skills during family-centered rounds. Hosp Pediatr. 2012;2:85-92.
• 34. Beaudoin PL, Labbe M, Fanous A, Young M, Rappaport J, Park YS, et al. Teaching communication skills to OTL-HNS residents: Multisource feedback and simulated scenarios. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;48:8.
• 35. Jong M, Elliott N, Nguyen M, Goyke T, Johnson S, Cook M, et al. Assessment of emergency medicine resident performance in an adult simulation using a multisource feedback approach. West J of Emerg Med. 2019;20:64-70.
• 36. Prediger S, Fürstenberg S, Berberat PO, Kadmon M, Harendza S. Interprofessional assessment of medical students’ competences with an instrument suitable for physicians and nurses. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:46.