PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To explore how undergraduate nursing students are assessed on nursing numeracy and medication calculations from the perspective of Australian nurse education leaders.
METHODS: A qualitative study.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 nurse education leaders between November 2022 and January 2023. Braun and Clarke\'s six phases of thematic analysis were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: Five key themes were identified: (i) high expectations to keep the public safe, (ii) diverse assessment formats, (iii) different ways of managing assessment integrity, (iv) assessment conditions incongruent to the clinical setting and (v) supporting struggling students.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurse education leaders set high standards requiring students to achieve 100% in numeracy and medication calculation assessments, thus maintaining the reputation of nursing and patient safety. However, students struggled to meet this expectation. Diverse assessment formats were implemented, with some examination conditions contrary to clinical practice. Currently, there is no benchmark or independent point of registration examination in Australia, hence the problem is each university had a different standard to judge students\' competence. Gaining insight into how these assessments are conducted provides an opportunity to work towards an evidence-based model or benchmark for the assessment of numeracy.
UNASSIGNED: Dosage errors in clinical practice threaten patient safety and the reputation of the nursing profession. The accuracy rate of calculations by undergraduate and registered nurses is deficient worldwide. This research highlights a major educational issue, that being the wide variation in how numeracy assessments are conducted with no clear pedagogical rationale for a standardised method. Such assessments would establish a national standard, contributing to quality assurance, the development of the nursing profession and improve patient safety.
METHODS: A qualitative study.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 nurse education leaders between November 2022 and January 2023. Braun and Clarke\'s six phases of thematic analysis were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: Five key themes were identified: (i) high expectations to keep the public safe, (ii) diverse assessment formats, (iii) different ways of managing assessment integrity, (iv) assessment conditions incongruent to the clinical setting and (v) supporting struggling students.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurse education leaders set high standards requiring students to achieve 100% in numeracy and medication calculation assessments, thus maintaining the reputation of nursing and patient safety. However, students struggled to meet this expectation. Diverse assessment formats were implemented, with some examination conditions contrary to clinical practice. Currently, there is no benchmark or independent point of registration examination in Australia, hence the problem is each university had a different standard to judge students\' competence. Gaining insight into how these assessments are conducted provides an opportunity to work towards an evidence-based model or benchmark for the assessment of numeracy.
UNASSIGNED: Dosage errors in clinical practice threaten patient safety and the reputation of the nursing profession. The accuracy rate of calculations by undergraduate and registered nurses is deficient worldwide. This research highlights a major educational issue, that being the wide variation in how numeracy assessments are conducted with no clear pedagogical rationale for a standardised method. Such assessments would establish a national standard, contributing to quality assurance, the development of the nursing profession and improve patient safety.
摘要：
目的：从澳大利亚护士教育领导者的角度，探讨如何评估护理本科生的护理计算能力和药物计算。
方法：定性研究。
方法：在2022年11月至2023年1月之间对17名护士教育负责人进行了半结构化访谈。Braun和Clarke的六个阶段的主题分析被用来分析数据。
结果：确定了五个关键主题：（i）对保持公众安全的高期望，(ii)多样化的评估格式，(iii)管理评估完整性的不同方式，（iv）评估条件不符合临床环境和（v）支持挣扎的学生。
结论：护士教育领导者设定了高标准，要求学生在算术和药物计算评估方面达到100％，从而维护护理声誉和患者安全。然而,学生们努力满足这一期望。实施了多种评估格式，与临床实践相反的一些检查条件。目前,澳大利亚没有基准或独立的注册考试点，因此，问题是每个大学都有不同的标准来判断学生的能力。深入了解这些评估是如何进行的，这为建立基于证据的评估模型或基准提供了机会。
■临床实践中的剂量错误威胁着患者的安全和护理行业的声誉。在全球范围内，本科生和注册护士的计算准确率不足。这项研究突出了一个重大的教育问题，在标准化方法没有明确的教学依据的情况下，进行算术评估的方式差异很大。这种评估将建立一个国家标准，为质量保证做出贡献，护理专业的发展，提高病人的安全。
方法：定性研究。
方法：在2022年11月至2023年1月之间对17名护士教育负责人进行了半结构化访谈。Braun和Clarke的六个阶段的主题分析被用来分析数据。
结果：确定了五个关键主题：（i）对保持公众安全的高期望，(ii)多样化的评估格式，(iii)管理评估完整性的不同方式，（iv）评估条件不符合临床环境和（v）支持挣扎的学生。
结论：护士教育领导者设定了高标准，要求学生在算术和药物计算评估方面达到100％，从而维护护理声誉和患者安全。然而,学生们努力满足这一期望。实施了多种评估格式，与临床实践相反的一些检查条件。目前,澳大利亚没有基准或独立的注册考试点，因此，问题是每个大学都有不同的标准来判断学生的能力。深入了解这些评估是如何进行的，这为建立基于证据的评估模型或基准提供了机会。
■临床实践中的剂量错误威胁着患者的安全和护理行业的声誉。在全球范围内，本科生和注册护士的计算准确率不足。这项研究突出了一个重大的教育问题，在标准化方法没有明确的教学依据的情况下，进行算术评估的方式差异很大。这种评估将建立一个国家标准，为质量保证做出贡献，护理专业的发展，提高病人的安全。
