Abstract
Assessing clinical competence in nursing students abroad is a challenge, and requires both methods and instruments capable of capturing the multidimensional nature of the clinical competences acquired.
Objectives
The aim of the study was to compare the clinical competence assessment processes and instruments adopted for nursing students during their clinical placement abroad.
Design
A case study design was adopted in 2015.
Setting and Participants
A purposeful sample of eight nursing programmes located in seven countries (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Italy) were approached.
Methods
Tools as instruments for evaluating competences developed in clinical training by international nursing students, and written procedures aimed at guiding the evaluation process, were scrutinised through a content analysis method.
Findings
All clinical competence evaluation procedures and instruments used in the nursing programmes involved were provided in English. A final evaluation of the competences was expected by all nursing programmes at the end of the clinical placement, while only four provided an intermediate evaluation. Great variability emerged in the tools, with between five and 88 items included. Through content analysis, 196 items emerged, classified into 12 different core competence categories, the majority were categorised as ‘Technical skills’ (=60), ‘Self-learning and critical thinking’ (=27) and ‘Nursing care process’ (=25) competences. Little emphasis was given in the tools to competences involving ‘Self-adaptation’, ‘Inter-professional skills’, ‘Clinical documentation’, ‘Managing nursing care’, ‘Patient communication’, and ‘Theory and practice integration’.
Conclusions
Institutions signing Bilateral Agreements should agree upon the competences expected from students during their clinical education abroad. The tools used in the process, as well as the role expected by the student, should also be agreed upon. Intercultural competences should be further addressed in the process of evaluation, in addition to adaptation to different settings. There is also a need to establish those competences achievable or not in the host country, aiming at increasing transparency in learning expectations and evaluation
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 41-47 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Nurse Education Today |
| Volume | 51 |
| Early online date | 10 Jan 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2017 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Competence evaluation processes for nursing students abroad : Findings from an international case study. / Tommasini, Cristina; Dobrowolska, Beata; Zarzycka, Danuta; Bacatum, Claudia; Bruun, Anne Marie Gran; Korsath, Dag; Roel, Siv; Jansen, Mette Bro; Milling, Tine; Deschamps, Anne; Mantzoukas, Stefanos; Mantzouka, Christine; Palese, Alvisa.
In: Nurse Education Today, Vol. 51, 01.04.2017, p. 41-47.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Competence evaluation processes for nursing students abroad
T2 - Findings from an international case study
AU - Tommasini, Cristina
AU - Dobrowolska, Beata
AU - Zarzycka, Danuta
AU - Bacatum, Claudia
AU - Bruun, Anne Marie Gran
AU - Korsath, Dag
AU - Roel, Siv
AU - Jansen, Mette Bro
AU - Milling, Tine
AU - Deschamps, Anne
AU - Mantzoukas, Stefanos
AU - Mantzouka, Christine
AU - Palese, Alvisa
PY - 2017/4/1
Y1 - 2017/4/1
N2 - BackgroundAssessing clinical competence in nursing students abroad is a challenge, and requires both methods and instruments capable of capturing the multidimensional nature of the clinical competences acquired.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to compare the clinical competence assessment processes and instruments adopted for nursing students during their clinical placement abroad.DesignA case study design was adopted in 2015.Setting and ParticipantsA purposeful sample of eight nursing programmes located in seven countries (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Italy) were approached.MethodsTools as instruments for evaluating competences developed in clinical training by international nursing students, and written procedures aimed at guiding the evaluation process, were scrutinised through a content analysis method.FindingsAll clinical competence evaluation procedures and instruments used in the nursing programmes involved were provided in English. A final evaluation of the competences was expected by all nursing programmes at the end of the clinical placement, while only four provided an intermediate evaluation. Great variability emerged in the tools, with between five and 88 items included. Through content analysis, 196 items emerged, classified into 12 different core competence categories, the majority were categorised as ‘Technical skills’ (=60), ‘Self-learning and critical thinking’ (=27) and ‘Nursing care process’ (=25) competences. Little emphasis was given in the tools to competences involving ‘Self-adaptation’, ‘Inter-professional skills’, ‘Clinical documentation’, ‘Managing nursing care’, ‘Patient communication’, and ‘Theory and practice integration’.ConclusionsInstitutions signing Bilateral Agreements should agree upon the competences expected from students during their clinical education abroad. The tools used in the process, as well as the role expected by the student, should also be agreed upon. Intercultural competences should be further addressed in the process of evaluation, in addition to adaptation to different settings. There is also a need to establish those competences achievable or not in the host country, aiming at increasing transparency in learning expectations and evaluation
AB - BackgroundAssessing clinical competence in nursing students abroad is a challenge, and requires both methods and instruments capable of capturing the multidimensional nature of the clinical competences acquired.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to compare the clinical competence assessment processes and instruments adopted for nursing students during their clinical placement abroad.DesignA case study design was adopted in 2015.Setting and ParticipantsA purposeful sample of eight nursing programmes located in seven countries (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Italy) were approached.MethodsTools as instruments for evaluating competences developed in clinical training by international nursing students, and written procedures aimed at guiding the evaluation process, were scrutinised through a content analysis method.FindingsAll clinical competence evaluation procedures and instruments used in the nursing programmes involved were provided in English. A final evaluation of the competences was expected by all nursing programmes at the end of the clinical placement, while only four provided an intermediate evaluation. Great variability emerged in the tools, with between five and 88 items included. Through content analysis, 196 items emerged, classified into 12 different core competence categories, the majority were categorised as ‘Technical skills’ (=60), ‘Self-learning and critical thinking’ (=27) and ‘Nursing care process’ (=25) competences. Little emphasis was given in the tools to competences involving ‘Self-adaptation’, ‘Inter-professional skills’, ‘Clinical documentation’, ‘Managing nursing care’, ‘Patient communication’, and ‘Theory and practice integration’.ConclusionsInstitutions signing Bilateral Agreements should agree upon the competences expected from students during their clinical education abroad. The tools used in the process, as well as the role expected by the student, should also be agreed upon. Intercultural competences should be further addressed in the process of evaluation, in addition to adaptation to different settings. There is also a need to establish those competences achievable or not in the host country, aiming at increasing transparency in learning expectations and evaluation
KW - Nursing student mobility
KW - Traineeship
KW - Study abroad programme
KW - Erasmus programme
KW - Tool
KW - Instruments
KW - Evaluation process
KW - Competence
U2 - 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.01.002
DO - 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.01.002
M3 - Article
VL - 51
SP - 41
EP - 47
JO - Nurse Education Today
JF - Nurse Education Today
SN - 0260-6917
ER -