| Literature DB >> 35371234 |
Qingna Lv1, Yanyun Zhang2, Yanyan Li3, Yang Yu1.
Abstract
Based on the concept of responsible holistic nursing care, a whole-process dual-tutor nursing practice model is established and its application effects are explored. This paper firstly reviews the research progress of nursing workload prediction methods at home and abroad, in order to provide a reference for clinical nursing workers in China to choose a scientific, reasonable, and easy-to-use nursing workload prediction method. It is proposed to construct a nursing education management model based on small data to provide ideas and references for nursing education management to effectively predict the evolutionary trend of students' behaviour and improve the level of accurate services. The experimental group adopted a dual-tutor responsibility system for the whole-process nursing practice model, including a complete three-level supervision system: a dual-tutor teaching system, a PDCA responsibility system for continuous improvement, and a multichannel teacher-student interaction platform; the control group adopted the traditional nursing practice model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35371234 PMCID: PMC8970898 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3099794
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The process of constructing a student portrait for nursing education management based on small data.
Figure 2System of nursing education management student portrait dimensions.
Figure 3Steps for modelling unstructured text based on LDA topic models.
Comparison of the comprehensive assessment scores of nursing students in the two groups .
| Project | Experimental group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical assessment | 79.70 ± 8.12 | 77.19 ± 6.78 | 3.108 | 0.002 |
| Operation assessment | 85.48 ± 7.33 | 82.56 ± 8.25 | 3.491 | <0.001 |
| Practice performance | 72.02 ± 10.12 | 66.58 ± 12.27 | 4.472 | <0.001 |
| Professional quality | 14.72 ± 1.92 | 13.55 ± 1.94 | 5.621 | <0.001 |
| Professional skills | 15.04 ± 2.22 | 14.29 ± 2.98 | 2.631 | <0.001 |
| Communication skills | 13.25 ± 2.21 | 11.48 ± 2.45 | 5.843 | 0.009 |
| Learning and scientific research ability | 14.81 ± 2.38 | 13.57 ± 5.24 | 4.512 | <0.001 |
| Teamwork | 14.21 ± 2.1 | 13.26 ± 2.49 | 3.815 | <0.001 |
Comparison of professional identity between the two groups of nursing students .
| Project | Experimental group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sense of grasp | 5.86 ± 0.99 | 5.33 ± 1.04 | 4.862 | <0.001 |
| Sense of consistency | 5.52 ± 1.41 | 4.36 ± 1.68 | 6.988 | <0.001 |
| Sense of meaning | 5.88 ± 1.25 | 5.40 ± 1.36 | 3.426 | <0.001 |
| Self-efficacy | 5.91 ± 0.85 | 5.64 ± 0.93 | 2.826 | 0.005 |
| Self-determination | 4.35 ± 1.84 | 3.76 ± 1.92 | 2.922 | 0.004 |
| Sense of organisational influence | 3.66 ± 1.53 | 3.38 ± 1.65 | 1.640 | 0.102 |
| Patient's sense of influence | 5.15 ± 1.20 | 4.39 ± 1.33 | 5.465 | <0.001 |
Patient care service satisfaction .
| Project | Experimental group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Service quality | 3.91 ± 0.84 | 3.62 ± 0.93 | 3.056 | 0.002 |
| Professional skills | 4.00 ± 0.88 | 3.46 ± 0.95 | 5.496 | <0.001 |
| Patient education | 4.05 ± 0.92 | 3.53 ± 0.86 | 5.425 | <0.001 |
| Humanistic concern | 3.60 ± 0.89 | 3.26 ± 0.87 | 3.592 | <0.001 |
| Overall evaluation | 3.86 ± 0.94 | 3.52 ± 0.97 | 3.314 | 0.001 |
Evaluation of placement patterns by nursing students in both groups .
| Project | Experimental group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rationality | 4.26 ± 0.76 | 3.70 ± 0.94 | 6.075 | <0.001 |
| Generalizability | 4.40 ± 0.73 | 3.34 ± 0.82 | 12.760 | <0.001 |
| Teaching quality | 4.20 ± 0.78 | 3.62 ± 1.02 | 5.900 | <0.001 |
| Management quality | 4.25 ± 0.79 | 3.55 ± 0.95 | 7.382 | <0.001 |
| Comprehensive evaluation | 1.30 ± 0.81 | 3.53 ± 0.89 | 8.424 | <0.001 |
Figure 4Predicted performance for different management.
Figure 5Different prediction levels.
Figure 6Short-term effects of care.