Australian nursing students’ experience of bullying and/or harassment during clinical placement
- Budden, Lea, Birks, Melanie, Cant, Robyn, Bagley, Tracy, Park, Tanya
- Authors: Budden, Lea , Birks, Melanie , Cant, Robyn , Bagley, Tracy , Park, Tanya
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Collegian Vol. 24, no. 2 (2017), p. 125-133
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Bullying and harassment in nursing are unacceptable behaviours in the workplace. There is a large body of evidence relating this problem, however little of it focuses on the experiences of nursing students. This prospective cross-sectional survey investigated Australian undergraduate nursing students’ (N = 888) experiences of bullying and/or harassment during clinical placement. Half (50.1%) of the students indicated they had experienced this behaviour in the previous 12 months. Younger students were more likely to be bullied/harassed than older students (p = 0.05). Participants identified perpetrators of bullying/harassment as registered nurses (56.6%), patients (37.4%), enrolled nurse's (36.4%), clinical facilitators (25.9%), preceptors (24.6%), nurse managers (22.8%) and other student nurses (11.8%). The majority of students reported that the experience of being bullied/harassed made them feel anxious (71.5%) and depressed (53.6%). Almost a third of students (32.8%) indicated that these experiences negatively affected the standard of care they provided to patients with many (46.9%) reconsidering nursing as their intended career. In the face of workforce attrition in nursing, the findings of this study have implications for education providers, clinical institutions and the profession at large. © 2015 Australian College of Nursing Ltd
Measuring the quality of nursing clinical placements and the development of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) in a mixed methods co-design project
- Cooper, Simon J., Cant, Robyn, Waters, Donna, Luders, Elise, Henderson, Amanda, Willetts, Georgina, Tower, Marion, Reid-Searl, Kerry, Ryan, Colleen, Hood, Kerry
- Authors: Cooper, Simon J. , Cant, Robyn , Waters, Donna , Luders, Elise , Henderson, Amanda , Willetts, Georgina , Tower, Marion , Reid-Searl, Kerry , Ryan, Colleen , Hood, Kerry
- Date: 2020
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: BMC Nursing Vol. 19, no. 1 (2020), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: The quality of nursing clinical placements has been found to vary. Placement evaluation tools for nursing students are available but lack contemporary reviews of clinical settings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a feasible, valid and reliable clinical placement evaluation tool applicable to nursing student placements in Australia. Methods: An exploratory mixed methods co-design project. Phase 1 included a literature review; expert rating of potential question items and Nominal Group Technique meetings with a range of stakeholders for item development. Phase 2 included on-line pilot testing of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) with 1263 nursing students, across all year levels at six Australian Universities and one further education college in 2019–20, to confirm validity, reliability and feasibility. Results: The PET included 19-items (rated on a 5-point agreement scale) and one global satisfaction rating (a 10-point scale). Placements were generally positively rated. The total scale score (19 items) revealed a median student rating of 81 points from a maximum of 95 and a median global satisfaction rating of 9/10. Criterion validity was confirmed by item correlation: Intra-class Correlation Co-efficient ICC =.709; scale total to global score r =.722; and items to total score ranging from.609 to.832. Strong concurrent validity was demonstrated with the Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision Scale (r =.834). Internal reliability was identified and confirmed in two subscale factors: Clinical Environment (Cronbach’s alpha =.94) and Learning Support (alpha =.96). Based on the short time taken to complete the survey (median 3.5 min) and students’ comments, the tool was deemed applicable and feasible. Conclusions: The PET was found to be valid, reliable and feasible. Use of the tool as a quality assurance measure is likely to improve education and practice in clinical environments. Further international evaluation of the instrument is required to fully determine its psychometric properties. © 2020, The Author(s).
- Description: This work was funded by the Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery (Australia and New Zealand) – 2019. The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.
- Authors: Cooper, Simon J. , Cant, Robyn , Waters, Donna , Luders, Elise , Henderson, Amanda , Willetts, Georgina , Tower, Marion , Reid-Searl, Kerry , Ryan, Colleen , Hood, Kerry
- Date: 2020
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: BMC Nursing Vol. 19, no. 1 (2020), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: The quality of nursing clinical placements has been found to vary. Placement evaluation tools for nursing students are available but lack contemporary reviews of clinical settings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a feasible, valid and reliable clinical placement evaluation tool applicable to nursing student placements in Australia. Methods: An exploratory mixed methods co-design project. Phase 1 included a literature review; expert rating of potential question items and Nominal Group Technique meetings with a range of stakeholders for item development. Phase 2 included on-line pilot testing of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) with 1263 nursing students, across all year levels at six Australian Universities and one further education college in 2019–20, to confirm validity, reliability and feasibility. Results: The PET included 19-items (rated on a 5-point agreement scale) and one global satisfaction rating (a 10-point scale). Placements were generally positively rated. The total scale score (19 items) revealed a median student rating of 81 points from a maximum of 95 and a median global satisfaction rating of 9/10. Criterion validity was confirmed by item correlation: Intra-class Correlation Co-efficient ICC =.709; scale total to global score r =.722; and items to total score ranging from.609 to.832. Strong concurrent validity was demonstrated with the Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision Scale (r =.834). Internal reliability was identified and confirmed in two subscale factors: Clinical Environment (Cronbach’s alpha =.94) and Learning Support (alpha =.96). Based on the short time taken to complete the survey (median 3.5 min) and students’ comments, the tool was deemed applicable and feasible. Conclusions: The PET was found to be valid, reliable and feasible. Use of the tool as a quality assurance measure is likely to improve education and practice in clinical environments. Further international evaluation of the instrument is required to fully determine its psychometric properties. © 2020, The Author(s).
- Description: This work was funded by the Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery (Australia and New Zealand) – 2019. The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »