| Literature DB >> 31826152 |
Adelais Markaki1, Jacqueline Moss1, Allison Shorten1, Cynthia Selleck1, Lori Loan1, Rhonda McLain1, Rebecca Miltner1, Patricia Patrician1, Lisa Theus1, Lilian Ferrer2, Fernanda Dos Santos Nogueira de Góes3, Maria Teresa Valenzuela-Mujica2, Rosa Zarate-Grajales4, Silvia Helena De Bortoli Cassiani5, Doreen Harper1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to present the development of a toolkit for education quality improvement in universal health and primary health care, targeting schools of nursing and midwifery in Latin American and Caribbean countries.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31826152 PMCID: PMC6896809 DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.3229.3188
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem ISSN: 0104-1169
Figure 1Development process of the EQI Toolkit
*QI: Quality Improvement; †LAC: Latin America and Caribbean; ‡EQI: Education Quality Improvement
Figure 2Literature search and inclusion criteria*
*Source: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Cognitive Debriefing form
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Background | ||||
| Introduction to Universal Health & Primary Health Care | ||||
| Introduction to Quality Improvement in Nursing and Midwifery Education | ||||
| Methodology | ||||
| Figure 1. Model for Improvement (MFI) | ||||
| Using the Model for Improvement (Steps 1-7) | ||||
| Examples of educational improvement for UH and PHC | ||||
| Appendix A | ||||
| Appendix B | ||||
| Appendix C | ||||
| Appendix D-1 | ||||
| Appendix E | ||||
| Appendix G | ||||
Literature review articles according to type of study, level of evidence, implications and resource theme
| Author | Country/ Setting/ | Type of study/Level of evidence | Key findings / Implications | Resource theme |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andresen K & Levin P (2014)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Augmenting evaluation tools and processes for clinical learning required faculty collaboration | Curriculum plan development |
| Armstrong GE et al. (2009)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Shared values between competency-based curricular models and [ | Curriculum plan development |
| Brown JF & Marshall B (2008)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Effectiveness of |
|
| Cassiani et al. (2017)(
| 25 Latin American & Caribbean countries/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Heterogeneity in nursing education reflects disparities | Assessment - Evaluation |
| Coffman S | USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • In the concierge model of simulation, a core team of trained experts implement high-fidelity simulation scenarios followed by debriefing | Implementation - Case Study |
| Ellis P & Halstead J (2012)(
| USA/ | Expert opinion / Level VII | • Accreditation is an ongoing process of |
|
| Escallier L & Fullerton J (2012)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Step-by-step process to develop an evaluation protocol with linkages to external criteria for evaluation of the plan itself | Assessment - Evaluation |
| Fater KH (2013)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Gap analysis as a method to assess core competency in the curriculum | Assessment - Evaluation |
| Gonzalez-Chorda VM & Macia-Soler ML (2015)(
| Spain/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • [ | Assessment - Evaluation |
| Halstead J (2017)(
| USA/ | Expert opinion/ Level VII | • |
|
| Hooper J & Ayars V (2017)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Interventions for improvement: revising admission and re-admission criteria, identifying at-risk students and providing remediation, revising and enforcing policies, updating curriculum, basing decisions on program evaluation data, evaluating use of standardized exams |
|
| James B | UK/ | Qualitative study / Level VI | • Time needed to acclimatise, socialise and conduct the Practicum | Implementation - Case Study |
| Kaplan B | USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Use of patient simulators is an effective strategy for deliberate practice of skills and standardized exposure to limited scenarios | Implementation - Case Study |
| Karagory, PM (2014)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Systems and [ | Implementation - Case Study |
| McComb, SA & Kirkpatrick JM (2017)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Exposes students to real world experiences that highlight relevance and significance of these skills in the health care context | Implementation - Case Study |
| Nugent, E & LaRocco S | USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Several programmatic and curricular recommendations |
|
| Posey, L. & Pinzt C (2017)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Blended learning can: support teaching goals and address course challenges; provide independent learning activities outside the traditional classroom; increase opportunities for active learning; and improve digital literacy and lifelong learning skills | Implementation - Case Study |
| Santos, M. (2012)(
| Brazil/ | Expert opinion / Level VII | • The [ |
|
| Seibert, SA (2014)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Assignments focus on systems level thinking and process evaluation of facility characteristics, team communication, unit based improvement | Curriculum plan development |
| Sherrod, RA (2008)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • |
|
| Wassef, ME (2012)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • An interdisciplinary team used the Plan, Do, Study, Act QI model to | Implementation - Case study |
| Wolf ZR (2011)(
| USA/ | Descriptive study / Level VI | • Undergraduate nursing students made the most complaints; failure and dismissal from program was the most frequent taxon, with grading, teaching, and testing the next highest |
|
Levels of evidence based on Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2011) [21]: Level I = systematic review or meta-analysis; Level II = randomized control trial; Level III = controlled trial without randomization; Level IV = case-control or cohort study; Level V = systematic review of qualitative or descriptive studies; Level VI = qualitative or descriptive studies; Level VII = expert opinion or consensus.
BSN = Bachelor of Science in Nursing;
QSEN = Quality and Safety Education for Nurses;
COPA = Competency Outcome and Performance Assessment;
QI = Quality Improvement;
QEP = Quality Enhancement Plan;
CQI = Continuous Quality Improvement;
NCLEX-RN = National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses;
UH = Universal Health;
IOM = Institute of Medicine
Figure 5Model for Improvement and PDSA Cycle with steps
Used with permission from Moen R, and Norman CL. Source: Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2.ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009. p. 24.