Scholes J, Endacott R, Chellel A
Centre for Nursing and Midwifery Research, University of Brighton, Westlain House, Village Way, Brighton BN1 9PH, UK.
J Clin Nurs. 2000 May;9(3):382-90. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2000.00381.x.
This paper is based on a documentary analysis and literature review of critical care nursing commissioned by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Five critical care programmes were included in the analysis: ENB 100, 124, 199, 176/183, and 415. In total, 105 curricula were reviewed from 30 institutions. Data were extracted and analysed using an adapted grounded theory approach. The documentary analysis was supplemented by two telephone surveys with lecturers (n = 84) and clinical managers (n = 81). There was great diversity in the programmes in terms of the academic level at which the courses were set, module configuration, approaches to practice assessment and the amount of student effort for the same professional award. Diversity arose because of different university module formulae, different methods to differentiate level 2 and level 3 practice, different views about the purpose of the course, and an attempt to make the programmes increasingly flexible to accommodate a heterogeneous student population. Documentary analysis has its limitations, and although the research team were able to check out issues with lecturers throughout the analysis, they were unable to capture the lived experience of the curriculum. A second study has been commissioned by the ENB to explore how these issues influence practice.
本文基于由英国国家护理、助产与健康访视委员会委托开展的重症护理文献分析与综述。分析纳入了五个重症护理项目:ENB 100、124、199、176/183和415。总共对来自30个机构的105份课程进行了审查。采用一种经过调整的扎根理论方法提取并分析数据。文献分析辅以对讲师(n = 84)和临床管理人员(n = 81)进行的两次电话调查。这些项目在课程设置的学术水平、模块配置、实践评估方法以及获得相同专业奖项所需的学生努力程度方面存在很大差异。产生这种差异的原因包括不同的大学模块公式、区分二级和三级实践的不同方法、对课程目的的不同看法,以及试图使这些项目更具灵活性以适应多样化的学生群体。文献分析有其局限性,尽管研究团队在整个分析过程中能够与讲师核实问题,但他们无法捕捉课程的实际体验。英国国家护理、助产与健康访视委员会已委托开展第二项研究,以探讨这些问题如何影响实践。