Ewan W McDonald1, Jessica L Boulton2, Jacqueline L Davis2. 1. Austin Clinical School, La Trobe University, Australia. Electronic address: ewan.mcdonald@latrobe.edu.au. 2. Austin Clinical School, La Trobe University, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This review examines the current evidence on the effectiveness of digital technologies or e-based learning for enhancing the skills and knowledge of nursing students in nursing assessment. DESIGN & BACKGROUND: This integrative review identifies themes emerging from e-learning and 'nursing assessment' literature. Literature reviews have been undertaken in relation to digital learning and nursing education, including clinical skills, clinical case studies and the nurse-educator role. Whilst perceptions of digital learning are well covered, a gap in knowledge persists for understanding the effectiveness of e-learning on nursing assessment skills and knowledge. This is important as comprehensive assessment skills and knowledge are a key competency for newly qualified nurses. DATA-SOURCES: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source electronic databases were searched for the period 2006 to 2016. Hand searching in bibliographies was also undertaken. REVIEW METHODS: Selection criteria for this review included: FINDINGS: Twenty articles met the selection criteria for this review, and five major themes for e-based learning were identified (a) students become self-evaluators; (b) blend and scaffold learning; (c) measurement of clinical reasoning; (d) mobile technology and Facebook are effective; and (e) training and preparation is vital. CONCLUSIONS: Although e-based learning programs provide a flexible teaching method, evidence suggests e-based learning alone does not exceed face-to-face patient simulation. This is particularly the case where nursing assessment learning is not scaffolded. This review demonstrates that e-based learning and traditional teaching methods used in conjunction with each other create a superior learning style.
OBJECTIVES: This review examines the current evidence on the effectiveness of digital technologies or e-based learning for enhancing the skills and knowledge of nursing students in nursing assessment. DESIGN & BACKGROUND: This integrative review identifies themes emerging from e-learning and 'nursing assessment' literature. Literature reviews have been undertaken in relation to digital learning and nursing education, including clinical skills, clinical case studies and the nurse-educator role. Whilst perceptions of digital learning are well covered, a gap in knowledge persists for understanding the effectiveness of e-learning on nursing assessment skills and knowledge. This is important as comprehensive assessment skills and knowledge are a key competency for newly qualified nurses. DATA-SOURCES: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source electronic databases were searched for the period 2006 to 2016. Hand searching in bibliographies was also undertaken. REVIEW METHODS: Selection criteria for this review included: FINDINGS: Twenty articles met the selection criteria for this review, and five major themes for e-based learning were identified (a) students become self-evaluators; (b) blend and scaffold learning; (c) measurement of clinical reasoning; (d) mobile technology and Facebook are effective; and (e) training and preparation is vital. CONCLUSIONS: Although e-based learning programs provide a flexible teaching method, evidence suggests e-based learning alone does not exceed face-to-face patient simulation. This is particularly the case where nursing assessment learning is not scaffolded. This review demonstrates that e-based learning and traditional teaching methods used in conjunction with each other create a superior learning style.
Authors: Maximilian Riedel; Gabriel Eisenkolb; Niklas Amann; Anne Karge; Bastian Meyer; Maria Tensil; Florian Recker; Anna Maria Dobberkau; Fabian Riedel; Bettina Kuschel; Evelyn Klein Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Rupinder Hayer; Kate Kirley; Jordana B Cohen; Stavros Tsipas; Susan E Sutherland; Suzanne Oparil; Christina M Shay; Debbie L Cohen; Christopher Kabir; Gregory Wozniak Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Gregor Leonhard Olmes; Julia Sarah Maria Zimmermann; Lisa Stotz; Ferenc Zoltan Takacs; Amr Hamza; Marc Philipp Radosa; Sebastian Findeklee; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Julia Caroline Radosa Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 2.344