目标:本系统综述将确定如何在英国高等教育机构(HEI)中应用健身实践(FtP)流程,与健康和护理专业理事会或护理和助产理事会批准的计划有关。
背景:医疗保健学生需要完成实践和理论元素,为了获得他们的学位和资格作为一个保健医生,如护士。这是英国HEIs提供医疗保健计划的要求,向适当的监管机构提供证据,证明FtP政策和流程已经到位,他们审查和管理与学生的实践标准有关的任何问题。监管机构为高等教育机构提供有关政策的战略指导,这些指导可以解释并纳入现有政策;这意味着在HEI环境中没有FtP流程的标准方法,允许单独的政策和程序存在。
方法:系统综述,在PROSPERO注册(CRD42022291532于2022年1月21日)。
方法:使用发表在10个数据库中的同行评审研究,包括:Medline,科克伦图书馆,PubMed,ScienceDirect,教育来源,PsycInfo和护理和相关健康文献累积指数(CINAHL)完成。引文搜索也发生了。
方法:本系统评价使用系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)技术的首选报告项目。关键评估技能计划(CASP)清单用于评估研究质量。
结果:共检索到25篇文章,其中5篇论文最终被选中进行综述。主题分析确定了三个主题:缺乏对FtP期望的识别;高等教育机构与实践之间协同工作的重要性;在管理FtP问题时与高等教育机构流程不一致。
结论:发现缺乏对FtP对学生的期望的理解。高等教育机构与实践之间的协同工作对于确保医疗保健学生始终如一地满足FtP要求以保护公众是必要的。虽然HEIsFtP过程包含类似的原则,已经确定,在这个过程中有不一致的大学在英国。这些差异包括:FtP流程的启动,对结果。这可能会影响患者的护理和安全,需要审查国家指南,以及需要对NHS信托和私人组织的政策和程序进行潜在修订。
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review will establish how Fitness to Practise (FtP) processes are applied in UK Higher Education Institutions (HEI), in relation to both Health and Care Profession Council or Nursing and Midwifery Council approved programmes.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare students are required to complete both practice and theory elements, in order to gain their degree and qualify as a healthcare practitioner such as a nurse. It is a requirement of UK HEIs which provide healthcare programmes, to provide evidence to the appropriate regulatory body that FtP policies and processes are in place, and that they review and manage any concerns in relation to a student\'s standard of practice. Regulatory bodies provide HEIs with strategic guidance on policy which can be interpreted and incorporated into existing policies; this means that there is no standard approach to the FtP process in HEI settings, allowing individual policies and procedures to exist.
METHODS: A systematic review, registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022291532 on the 21st January 2022).
METHODS: Peer reviewed studies published in ten databases were used which included: Medline, Cochrane Library, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Education Source, PsycInfo and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Complete. Citation searching also occurred.
METHODS: This systematic review utilised Preferred Reporting items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) techniques. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists were used to appraise the quality of the research.
RESULTS: In total twenty-five articles were retrieved including five papers that were finally selected for review. A thematic analysis identified three themes: a lack of identification of what FtP expectations are; the importance of collaborative working between Higher Education Institutions and practice; the inconsistencies with Higher Education Institution processes in managing FtP concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: A lack of understanding of what FtP expectations are for students was identified. Collaborative working between Higher Education Institutions and practice is necessary to ensure healthcare students meet FtP requirements consistently in order to protect the public. Although HEIs FtP processes contain similar principles, it has been identified that there are inconsistencies in this process across universities in the UK. These differences include: what initiates the FtP process, to the outcomes. This could have an impact on patient care and safety, the need for review of national guidance, and potential amendments being required to the policies and procedures of both NHS Trusts and private organisations.