Emma E B Patterson1, Leanne Boyd2, George Mnatzaganian3. 1. Cabrini Institute, 183 Wattletree Road, Malvern, Victoria 3144, Australia. Electronic address: epatterson@cabrini.com.au. 2. Cabrini Institute, 183 Wattletree Road, Malvern, Victoria 3144, Australia. 3. College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical Placements are an essential component of bridging the gap between academic theory and nursing practice. There are multiple clinical models designed to ease the transition from student to professional, yet there has been little exploration of such models and their impact on graduates' perceptions of work-readiness. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study examined perceptions of work-readiness of new graduate nurses who attended one of the following clinical teaching models: the University Fellowship Program (UFP), the Traditional Multi-facility Clinical Model (TMCPM), and the Mixed Program (MP). METHODS: Three groups of first year graduate nurses (UFP, TMCPM, and MP) were compared using the Work-readiness Scale, a validated and reliable tool, which assessed nurses' perceptions of work-readiness in four domains: organizational acumen, personal work characteristics, social intelligence, and work competence. A multivariable Generalized Estimating Equations regression investigated socio-demographic and teaching-modelrelated factors associated with work-readiness. RESULTS: Of 43 nurses approached, 28 completed the survey (65% response rate) of whom 6 were UFP attendants, 8 attended the TMCPM and 14 the MP. Those who had attended the UFP scored higher than the other two in all four domains; however, the crude between-group comparisons did not yield statistically significant results. Only after accounting for age, gender, teaching setting and prior work experience, the multivariable model showed that undertaking the UFP was likely to increase perceptions of work-readiness by 1.4 points (95% CI 0.11-2.69), P=0.03). The UFP was superior to the other two placement models. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the UFP may enhance graduate nurses' perceptions of work readiness.
BACKGROUND: Clinical Placements are an essential component of bridging the gap between academic theory and nursing practice. There are multiple clinical models designed to ease the transition from student to professional, yet there has been little exploration of such models and their impact on graduates' perceptions of work-readiness. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study examined perceptions of work-readiness of new graduate nurses who attended one of the following clinical teaching models: the University Fellowship Program (UFP), the Traditional Multi-facility Clinical Model (TMCPM), and the Mixed Program (MP). METHODS: Three groups of first year graduate nurses (UFP, TMCPM, and MP) were compared using the Work-readiness Scale, a validated and reliable tool, which assessed nurses' perceptions of work-readiness in four domains: organizational acumen, personal work characteristics, social intelligence, and work competence. A multivariable Generalized Estimating Equations regression investigated socio-demographic and teaching-modelrelated factors associated with work-readiness. RESULTS: Of 43 nurses approached, 28 completed the survey (65% response rate) of whom 6 were UFP attendants, 8 attended the TMCPM and 14 the MP. Those who had attended the UFP scored higher than the other two in all four domains; however, the crude between-group comparisons did not yield statistically significant results. Only after accounting for age, gender, teaching setting and prior work experience, the multivariable model showed that undertaking the UFP was likely to increase perceptions of work-readiness by 1.4 points (95% CI 0.11-2.69), P=0.03). The UFP was superior to the other two placement models. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the UFP may enhance graduate nurses' perceptions of work readiness.
Authors: Bunmi S Malau-Aduli; Karina Jones; Faith Alele; Mary D Adu; Aaron Drovandi; Gillian Knott; Louise Young; Clara Jo Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.463