背景:评价临床护理实践教育质量的关键,目标,和可行的指标体系。当前对临床教学的评估通常衡量医院的学习环境,课堂教学,教学能力,或护生的实习质量。因此,临床评估往往不足以提供有针对性的反馈,指导教师发展,或确定临床教师实施变革和改进的具体领域。因此,我们研究的目的是建立一个科学的,系统,并建立临床适用的临床护理实习教学质量评价指标体系,确定各指标的权重,为科学、客观地评价临床护理实习教学质量提供参考依据。
方法:基于“结构-过程-结果”理论模型,通过文献复习和德尔菲调查,建立临床护理实践教学质量评价指标体系。采用层次分析法(AHP)确定各指标的权重。
结果:两轮专家调查的有效响应率为100%。专家权威系数分别为0.961和0.975。各级别指标的变异系数范围为0~0.25和0~0.21,肯德尔和谐系数分别为0.209和0.135,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001)。最终建立的指标体系包括3个一级,10二级,和29个三级指标。根据层次分析法计算的权重,一级指标排名为“过程质量”(39.81%),“结构质量”(36.67%),和“结果质量”(23.52%)。在次要指标中,专家最关注“教学人员”(23.68%),"教学规章制度落实(14.14%),和“教学计划”(13.20%)。三级指标排名前三位的是"师资队伍水平"(12.62%),“教师队伍结构”(11.06%),和“实施教学对象管理制度”(7.54%)。
结论:构建的临床护理实习教学质量评价指标体系科学可靠,合理的重量。管理者的重点已经从面向结果的方法转向面向过程的方法,更加注重教师队伍建设,教学条例执行情况,提高临床教学质量需要进行教学设计。
BACKGROUND: The key step in evaluating the quality of clinical nursing practice education lies in establishing a scientific, objective, and feasible index system. Current assessments of clinical teaching typically measure hospital learning environments, classroom teaching, teaching competency, or the internship quality of nursing students. As a result, clinical evaluations are often insufficient to provide focused feedback, guide faculty development, or identify specific areas for clinical teachers to implement change and improvement. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to to construct a scientific, systematic, and clinically applicable evaluation index system of clinical nursing practice teaching quality and determine each indicator\'s weight to provide references for the scientific and objective evaluation of clinical nursing practice teaching quality.
METHODS: Based on the \"Structure-Process-Outcome\" theoretical model, a literature review and Delphi surveys were conducted to establish the evaluation index system of clinical nursing practice teaching quality. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed to determine the weight of each indicator.
RESULTS: The effective response rate for the two rounds of expert surveys was 100%. The expert authority coefficients were 0.961 and 0.975, respectively. The coefficient of variation for the indicators at each level ranged from 0 to 0.25 and 0 to 0.21, and the Kendall harmony coefficients were 0.209 and 0.135, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). The final established index system included 3 first-level, 10 second-level, and 29 third-level indicators. According to the weights computed by the AHP, first-level indicators were ranked as \"Process quality\" (39.81%), \"Structure quality\" (36.67%), and \"Outcome quality\" (23.52%). Among the secondary indicators, experts paid the most attention to \"Teaching staff\" (23.68%), \"Implementation of teaching rules and regulations (14.14%), and \"Teaching plans\" (13.20%). The top three third-level indicators were \"Level of teaching staff\" (12.62%), \"Structure of teaching staff\" (11.06%), and \"Implementation of the management system for teaching objects\" (7.54%).
CONCLUSIONS: The constructed evaluation index system of clinical nursing practice teaching quality is scientific and reliable, with reasonable weight. The managers\' focus has shifted from outcome-oriented to process-oriented approaches, and more focus on teaching team construction, teaching regulations implementation, and teaching design is needed to improve clinical teaching quality.