Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Exploring the influence of different models of undergraduate nursing education on the work readiness of new graduate nurses.|
|Epworth Authors:||Dudley, Mietta|
Epworth HealthCare/ Deakin University Partnership Model for Clinical Placement
Workplace Readiness Scale
Clinical Learning Environment Inventory
Undergraduate Clinical Placements
Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Epworth HealthCare Partnership
Epworth/Deakin Centre for Clinical Nursing Research, Epworth Healthcare, Victoria, Australia.
|Citation:||Epworth Research Institute Research Week 2017; Poster 10: pp 33|
|Conference:||Epworth Research Institute Research Week 2017|
|Conference Location:||Epworth Research Institute, Victoria, Australia|
|Abstract:||BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the undergraduate clinical learning environment on graduate nurses' workplace readiness and to compare workplace readiness between students who completed the Epworth HealthCare/Deakin University partnership model for clinical placement (CCEED) with students who completed other undergraduate programs. METHODS: A prospective repeated measures study design was used to evaluate the work readiness of nurses at the end of their undergraduate year and 8-10 weeks after they commenced their graduate year. Two validated measurement instruments were used: (i) Work Readiness Scale, and (ii) Clinical Learning Environment Inventory (CLEI). Difference between groups were compared using unpaired T-tests. RESULTS: Seventy-five nurses were recruited in 2015; 21 (28%) nurses had completed the CCEED program and 54 (72%) nurses other programs. Of the 21 nurses who were completing the CCEED program, 12 (57%) were planning to undertake their graduate year at another hospital and 9 (43%) were planning to continue at EHC. There were no significant differences between the CCEED and non-CCEED students in age or sex, 17 (81%) of the CCEED students versus 37 (72%) of the non-CCEED students envisaged working in nursing in 5 years' time. CCEED students versus non-CCEED students perceived that in their experience, the undergraduate clinical learning environment was innovative (mean score 10.95 (SD 1.94) versus 9.07 (SD 2.50), p = 0.003), that they received individual attention (mean score 16.62 (SD 2.58) versus 14.30 (SD 3.19) p = 0.004) and that the education program was student centred (CCEED mean 109.25 (SD 8.98) versus 99.33 (SD 15.51), p = 0.008). At baseline there were no significant difference between groups on the Work Readiness Scale. CONCLUSION: Overall both cohorts reported a positive experience in their undergraduate clinical placements, CCEED students rated their undergraduate experience higher than other programs in innovation and student engagement.|
|Affiliated Organisations:||Deakin University Geelong: School of Nursing and Midwifery|
|Type of Clinical Study or Trial:||Prospective Study|
|Appears in Collections:||Clinical Education & Simulation|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in EKB are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.