Haines Alice Jane
University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, United States of America.
J Prof Nurs. 2025 Sep-Oct;60:133-143. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2025.07.010. Epub 2025 Jul 31.
Failure to fail involves assigning passing grades to students who have not achieved course or clinical objectives at a satisfactory level. The literature has shown that this phenomenon occurs more frequently in the clinical setting due to several issues, including the increased subjectivity of clinical evaluation tools and processes, unclear policies, and lack of administrative support to fail students. The question remains: What is the thought process that is used by faculty to determine if a student passes or fails in a clinical experience?
To explore the decision-making process used by pre-licensure clinical nursing faculty when they are determining whether to pass or fail an unsafe student enrolled in a clinical course.
A qualitative constructivist grounded theory design was selected. Grounded theory explores a process about which little is known. The decision-making process used by faculty to determine if a student passes or fails a clinical course has never been described in literature. Participants were sixteen prelicensure clinical nursing faculty from associate degree, diploma and baccalaureate programs located in ten United States. Participants were recruited from multiple Facebook nurse educator websites and a group of diploma programs in Western Pennsylvania. A link to the study and consent was provided to each potential participant. Following signing of the consent and providing contact information, faculty were contacted by the investigator. Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant. Data was coded with SPSS version 26, NVivo Pro version 12, and analyzed manually.
Six unsafe clinical behaviors that caused students to reach the failure threshold were identified; lack of ability to synthesize the client's plan of care, ineffective interpersonal communication, unacceptable pattern of skills performance, disrespectful mindset/attitude, and deceitful/amoral conduct. Six reasons for faculty failing to fail were also discovered; lack of administrative support to fail unsafe students, ineffective clinical evaluation tools, inconsistent policy enforcement, time pressures, fear of appeals, grievances and lawsuits, and the core category which was identified as role conflict. Lack of support from administration was defined as an absence of backing from the faculty member's immediate supervisor when presented with written documentation proving that a student was clearly unsafe in the clinical setting. In this study, there was a refusal by the administration to allow the faculty member to fail the unsafe student. A substantive theory emerged from the data and was entitled "The Complex Conundrum of Clinical Evaluation." The theory contained four phases: seeing red flags (identifying the unsafe behaviors), seeking validation (meeting with administration), selecting an outcome (pass or fail), and failure to fail.
Failure to fail remains a significant problem in nursing education which has the potential to harm clients, staff, the reputation of the nursing program, and the profession.
“未能判定不合格”指的是给那些未达到课程或临床目标要求水平的学生评定及格成绩。文献表明,由于包括临床评估工具和流程主观性增强、政策不明确以及缺乏判定学生不合格的行政支持等若干问题,这种现象在临床环境中更为频繁地出现。问题依然存在:教师在临床实习中判定学生及格或不及格时所采用的思维过程是怎样的?
探讨预执照临床护理教师在判定参加临床课程的不安全学生是否及格时所采用的决策过程。
选择了一种定性建构主义扎根理论设计。扎根理论探索一个鲜为人知的过程。教师在判定学生临床课程是否及格时所采用的决策过程在文献中从未被描述过。参与者是来自美国十个地区的副学士学位、文凭和学士学位项目的16名预执照临床护理教师。参与者是从多个脸书护士教育者网站和宾夕法尼亚西部的一组文凭项目中招募的。向每位潜在参与者提供了研究链接和同意书。在签署同意书并提供联系信息后,研究者与教师取得了联系。对每位参与者进行了两次半结构化访谈。数据用SPSS 26版、NVivo Pro 12版进行编码,并进行人工分析。
确定了导致学生达到不及格门槛的六种不安全临床行为;无法综合制定患者护理计划、人际沟通无效、技能表现模式不可接受、不尊重的思维方式/态度以及欺骗性/不道德行为。还发现了教师未能判定学生不合格的六个原因;缺乏判定不安全学生不合格的行政支持、临床评估工具无效、政策执行不一致、时间压力、害怕上诉、申诉和诉讼,以及被确定为角色冲突的核心类别。行政支持不足被定义为当教师提交书面文件证明学生在临床环境中明显不安全时,其直属上级没有给予支持。在本研究中,行政部门拒绝允许教师判定不安全学生不及格。从数据中得出了一个实质性理论,名为“临床评估的复杂难题”。该理论包含四个阶段:发现危险信号(识别不安全行为)、寻求确认(与行政部门会面)、选择结果(及格或不及格)以及未能判定不合格。
未能判定不合格在护理教育中仍然是一个重大问题,有可能损害患者、工作人员、护理项目的声誉以及整个行业。