Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGill, Fenella
dc.contributor.authorLeslie, GD
dc.contributor.authorGrech, C
dc.contributor.authorBoldy, D
dc.contributor.authorLatour, Jos M
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-21T10:01:15Z
dc.date.available2017-01-21T10:01:15Z
dc.date.issued2015-02
dc.identifier.issn0962-1067
dc.identifier.issn1365-2702
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/8280
dc.description.abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Aims and objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To develop critical care nurse education practice standards.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Critical care specialist education for registered nurses in Australia is provided at graduate level. Considerable variation exists across courses with no framework to guide practice outcomes or evidence supporting the level of qualification.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>An eDelphi technique involved the iterative process of a national expert panel responding to three survey rounds.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>For the first round, 84 statements, organised within six domains, were developed from earlier phases of the study that included a literature review, analysis of critical care courses and input from health consumers. The panel, which represented the perspectives of four stakeholder groups, responded to two rating scales: level of importance and level of practice.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Of 105 experts who agreed to participate, 92 (88%) completed survey round I; 85 (92%) round <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>; and 73 (86%) round <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">III</jats:styled-content>. Of the 98 statements, 75 were rated as having a high level of importance – median 7 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">IQR</jats:styled-content> 6–7); 14 were rated as having a moderate level of importance – median 6 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">IQR</jats:styled-content> 5–7); and nine were rated as having a low level of importance – median 4 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">IQR</jats:styled-content> 4–6)–6 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">IQR</jats:styled-content> 4–6). The majority of the panel rated graduate level of practice as ‘demonstrates independently’ or ‘teaches or supervises others’ for 80 statements. For 18 statements, there was no category selected by 50% or more of the panel. The process resulted in the development of 98 practice standards, categorised into three levels, indicating a practice outcome level by the practitioner who can independently provide nursing care for a variety of critically ill patients in most contexts, using a patient‐ and family‐focused approach.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion/relevance to clinical practice</jats:title><jats:p>The graduate practice outcomes provide a critical care qualification definition for nursing workforce standards and can be used by course providers to achieve consistent practice outcomes.</jats:p></jats:sec>

dc.format.extent486-499
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley
dc.subjectassessment
dc.subjectDelphi study
dc.subjectgraduate-level education
dc.subjectintensive care
dc.subjectnursing
dc.subjectnursing education research
dc.subjectpostregistration qualifications
dc.titleDevelopment of <scp>A</scp>ustralian clinical practice outcome standards for graduates of critical care nurse education
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000350348600017&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue3-4
plymouth.volume24
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalJournal of Clinical Nursing
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jocn.12631
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2014-03-24
dc.identifier.eissn1365-2702
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/jocn.12631
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-02
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV