School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.
Family and Community Health Research Group (FaCH), School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Western Sydney and Conjoint Appointment with Nepean Blue Mountains, Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
BMC Nurs. 2013 Apr 15;12:12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6955-12-12. eCollection 2013.
Clinical scholarship has been conceptualised and theorised in the nursing literature for over 30 years but no research has captured nurses' clinicians' views on how it differs or is the same as clinical expertise and clinical leadership. The aim of this study was to determine clinical nurses' understanding of the differences and similarities between the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar.
A descriptive interpretative qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with 18 practising nurses from Australia, Canada and England. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and the text coded for emerging themes. The themes were sorted into categories of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholarship as described by the participants. These themes were then compared and contrasted and the essential elements that characterise the nursing roles of the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar were identified.
Clinical experts were seen as linking knowledge to practice with some displaying clinical leadership and scholarship. Clinical leadership is seen as a positional construct with a management emphasis. For the clinical scholar they linked theory and practice and encouraged research and dissemination of knowledge.
There are distinct markers for the roles of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar. Nurses working in one or more of these roles need to work together to improve patient care. An 'ideal nurse' may be a blending of all three constructs. As nursing is a practice discipline its scholarship should be predominantly based on clinical scholarship. Nurses need to be encouraged to go beyond their roles as clinical leaders and experts to use their position to challenge and change through the propagation of knowledge to their community.
临床学术研究在护理文献中已经被概念化和理论化超过 30 年，但没有研究捕捉到护士对临床专家、临床领导和临床学者之间的差异或相同之处的看法。本研究的目的是确定临床护士对临床专家、临床领导和临床学者之间的差异和相似之处的理解。
采用描述性解释性定性方法，对来自澳大利亚、加拿大和英国的 18 名执业护士进行半结构式访谈。对录音采访进行转录，并对文本进行编码以提取主题。这些主题被分类为临床专家、临床领导和临床学术研究，这是由参与者描述的。然后对这些主题进行比较和对比，并确定了临床专家、临床领导和临床学者角色的特征要素。
临床专家被视为将知识与实践联系起来，有些专家还表现出临床领导和学术研究能力。临床领导被视为一种具有管理重点的职位结构。对于临床学者，他们将理论与实践联系起来，并鼓励研究和知识传播。
临床专家、临床领导和临床学者的角色有明显的标志。在这些角色中的一个或多个角色中工作的护士需要共同努力，以改善患者护理。一个“理想的护士”可能是这三种结构的融合。由于护理是一门实践学科，其学术研究应该主要基于临床学术研究。需要鼓励护士超越临床领导和专家的角色，利用他们的职位通过向他们的社区传播知识来挑战和改变。
