Aitken Leanne M, Currey Judy, Marshall Andrea, Elliott Doug
Research Centre for Clinical Practice Innovation, Griffith University and Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.
Aust Crit Care. 2006 May;19(2):46-52. doi: 10.1016/s1036-7314(06)80009-3.
A range of critical care nursing educational courses exist throughout Australia. These courses vary in level of award, integration of clinical and academic competence and desired educational outcomes; this variability potentially leads to confusion by stakeholders regarding educational and clinical outcomes. The study objective was to describe the range of critical care nursing courses in Australia. Following institutional ethics approval, all relevant higher education providers (n=18) were invited to complete a questionnaire about course structure, content and nomenclature. Information about desired professional and general graduate characteristics and clinical competency was also sought. A total of 89% of providers (n=16) responded to the questionnaire. There was little consistency in course structure in regard to the proportion of each programme devoted to core, speciality or generic subjects. In general, graduate certificate courses concentrated on core aspects of critical care, graduate diploma courses provided similar amounts of critical care core and speciality content, while master's level courses concentrated on generic nursing issues. The majority of courses had employment requirements, although only a small proportion specified the minimum level of critical care unit required for clinical experience. The competency standards developed by the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN) were used by 83% of providers, albeit in an adapted form, to assess competency. However, only 60% of programmes used personnel with a combined clinical and educational role to assess such competence. In conclusion, stakeholders should not assume consistency in educational and clinical outcomes from critical care nursing education programmes, despite similar nomenclature or level of programme. However, consistency in the framework for speciality nurse education has the potential to prove beneficial for all stakeholders.
澳大利亚各地设有一系列重症护理教育课程。这些课程在奖项级别、临床与学术能力的整合以及预期教育成果方面存在差异;这种差异可能导致利益相关者对教育和临床成果感到困惑。该研究的目的是描述澳大利亚重症护理课程的范围。在获得机构伦理批准后,邀请了所有相关高等教育机构(n = 18)填写一份关于课程结构、内容和命名的问卷。还收集了有关预期的专业和一般毕业生特征以及临床能力的信息。共有89%的机构(n = 16)回复了问卷。在每个课程中,核心、专业或通用学科所占比例的课程结构方面几乎没有一致性。一般来说,研究生证书课程专注于重症护理的核心方面,研究生文凭课程提供的重症护理核心和专业内容数量相似,而硕士层次课程则专注于一般护理问题。大多数课程都有就业要求,尽管只有一小部分规定了临床经验所需的重症监护病房的最低级别。83%的机构使用了澳大利亚重症护理护士学院(ACCCN)制定的能力标准,尽管是以改编的形式来评估能力。然而,只有60%的课程使用具有临床和教育双重角色的人员来评估这种能力。总之,尽管课程命名或级别相似,但利益相关者不应认为重症护理教育课程的教育和临床成果具有一致性。然而,专业护士教育框架的一致性有可能对所有利益相关者都有益。