M Greenwood

Demystifying mixed methods research: Participation in a reading group 'sign posts' the way

Abstract Designing and implementing a mixed methods research project is a challenging undertaking. This paper addresses the issues faced by a group of doctoral researchers from the field of nursing. A reading group was formed between four PhD candidates and two supervisors to help assimilate issues that make up the controversy around mixed methods and to understand choices regarding paradigm, methodology, design and methods. Self-supporting learning through a reading group promotes independent scholarly development through a process of active engagement, interaction and reciprocity. Learning was both emergent and opportunistic to promote a sustained and structured engagement with the literature and contributed to the quality of the research experience. This paper focusses on five major challenges faced in relation to understanding, applying and the analysis of mixed methodologies. The decisions and deliberations are outlined regarding adopting and defending a mixed methods design, understanding the meaning of paradigm and its implication for the research study, identifying stages of mixing or integration in the individual projects, examining issues that threatened rigour and exploring and developing skills in ‘writing up’ a mixed methods project. The complexities and impediments of applying mixed methodology can in part be resolved by rigorous discussion within the confines of a supportive reading group. This paper describes the process of forming the group, evaluating progress and provides ‘sign posts’ for others. Through critically examining philosophical assumptions and various research designs in a reflexive supportive environment their research position has been strengthened.

Postgraduate nursing student knowledge, attitudes, skills, and confidence in appropriately referencing academic work.

Preventing plagiarism is an ongoing issue for higher education institutions. Although plagiarism has been traditionally seen as cheating, it is increasingly thought to be the result of poor referencing, with students reporting difficulties citing and referencing bibliographic sources. This study examined the academic knowledge, attitude, skills, and confidence of students in a school of nursing to understand poor referencing. A cross-sectional quantitative and qualitative survey was distributed to postgraduate (N = 1,000) certificate, diploma, and masters students. Quantitative data gathered demographics, cultural and linguistic background, and use of technology. Thematic analysis discovered patterns and themes. Results showed participants understood requirements for referencing; half indicated poor referencing was due to difficulty referencing Internet sources or losing track of sources, and many lacked confidence in key referencing tasks. Despite this, 50% did not make use of referencing resources. Overall, these data suggest incorrect referencing is rarely intentional and predominantly caused by skills deficit.

A two phase study to revise the Australian Practice Standards for Specialist Critical Care Nurses

BACKGROUND Observational work to develop the ACCCN Competency Standards was undertaken more than 20 years ago. Since then the landscape of critical care nursing as a specialty has changed and it is not known if the Competency Standards reflected contemporary practice. OBJECTIVES To revise the ACCCN Competency Standards for Specialist Critical Care Nurses to ensure they continue to meet the needs of critical care nurses and reflect current practice. METHODS A two-phased project was undertaken. In Phase I focus groups were held in all states. Thematic analysis was conducted using two techniques. The standards were revised based on the main themes. Phase II consisted of an eDelphi technique. A national panel of critical care nurses responded to three survey rounds using a 7 point likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement with the revised standards. A 70% agreement level for each statement was determined a priori. RESULTS Phase I: 12 focus groups (79 participants) were conducted. Phase II: A panel of specialist critical care nurses (research, management, clinical practice and education) responded to round 1 (n=64), round 2 (n=56), and round 3 (n=40). Fifteen practice standards with elements and performance criteria were grouped into four domains (professional practice, provision and coordination of care, critical thinking and analysis, collaboration and leadership). The revised Practice Standards for Specialist Critical Care Nurses build upon and are additional to the Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia National Competency Standards for Registered Nurses. The standards reflect contemporary critical care nurse practices using an expanded range of technologies to care for complex critically ill patients across the lifespan in diverse settings. CONCLUSION The national study has resulted in the 3rd edition of the Practice Standards for Specialist Critical Care Nurses. There was input from stakeholders and agreement that the revised standards capture contemporary Australian critical care nursing practice.

Development of a position statement for Australian critical care nurse education

Position statements are used by large organisations such as the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses to publically present an official philosophy or beliefs and to propose recommendations. Position statements are increasingly used by health departments and healthcare facilities to allocate resources and to guide and audit nursing practice, yet there are limited resources on the process of their development. A position statement should help readers better understand the issue, communicate solutions to problems, and inform decision-making. It should be supported by the highest level of evidence available and reflect the organisations governing objectives and goals. In this article, we describe the structured approach used to develop a position statement for Australian critical care nurse education. The formation of an expert advisory panel, synthesis of available evidence using Whittemore and Knafls integrative review methodology, use of Donabedians structure-process-outcomes quality framework as a theoretical approach, and multiple layers of consensus building and consultation enabled the development of an important critical care document and informed an implementation plan. The framework and processes we have outlined in this discussion article may provide a useful starting point for other professional organisations wishing to develop similar position statements.