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, Clinical Nursing Research Unit, Nepean Hospital, PO Box 63, 2751, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
BMC Nurs. 2013 Sep 25;12(1):21. doi: 10.1186/1472-6955-12-21.
There is a scarcity of research published on clinical scholarship. Much of the conceptualisation has been conducted in the academy. Nurse academics espouse that the practice of nursing must be built within a framework of clinical scholarship. A key concept of clinical scholarship emerging from discussions in the literature is that it is an essential component of enabling evidence-based nursing and the development of best practice standards to provide for the needs of patients/clients. However, there is no comprehensive definition of clinical scholarship from the practicing nurses. The aim of this study was to contribute to this definitional discussion on the nature of clinical scholarship in nursing.
Naturalistic inquiry informed the method. Using an interpretative approach 18 practicing nurses from Australia, Canada and England were interviewed using a semi-structured format. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and the text coded for emerging themes. The themes were sorted into categories and the components of clinical scholarship described by the participants compared to the scholarship framework of Boyer [JHEOE 7:5-18, 2010].
Clinical scholarship is difficult to conceptualise. Two of the essential elements of clinical scholarship are vision and passion. The other components of clinical scholarship were building and disseminating nursing knowledge, sharing knowledge, linking academic research to practice and doing practice-based research.
Academic scholarship dominated the discourse in nursing. However, in order for nursing to develop and to impact on health care, clinical scholarship needs to be explored and theorised. Nurse educators, hospital-based researchers and health organisations need to work together with academics to achieve this goal.Frameworks of scholarship conceptualised by nurse academics are reflected in the findings of this study with their emphasis on reading and doing research and translating it into nursing practice. This needs to be done in a nonthreatening environment.
目前关于临床学术研究的文献相对较少。大部分概念化的工作都是在学术界进行的。护理学者认为，护理实践必须建立在临床学术的框架内。从文献讨论中出现的临床学术的一个关键概念是，它是使护理循证和制定最佳实践标准以满足患者/客户需求的必要组成部分。然而，从实际护士的角度来看，还没有对临床学术的全面定义。本研究的目的是为护理临床学术的本质这一定义性讨论做出贡献。
自然主义探究为方法提供了信息。采用解释性方法，对来自澳大利亚、加拿大和英国的 18 名执业护士进行了访谈，使用半结构化格式。对录音采访进行了转录，并对出现的主题进行了编码。这些主题被分类为类别，并将参与者描述的临床学术组成部分与 Boyer [JHEOE 7:5-18, 2010] 的学术框架进行了比较。
临床学术很难概念化。临床学术的两个基本要素是视野和激情。临床学术的其他组成部分包括构建和传播护理知识、分享知识、将学术研究与实践联系起来以及进行基于实践的研究。
学术学术在护理中占据主导地位。然而，为了使护理发展并对医疗保健产生影响，需要探索和理论化临床学术。护理教育工作者、医院研究人员和卫生组织需要与学者合作来实现这一目标。护士学者概念化的学术框架反映在本研究的结果中，他们强调阅读和做研究，并将其转化为护理实践。这需要在非威胁性的环境中完成。
