Stephane Bouchoucha

Assessment of simulated clinical skills and distance students: Can we do it better?

Australian universities have traditionally been able to supplement clinical education, for undergraduate nursing courses, delivered on placement with weekly clinical teaching in the simulated environment. The Objective Structured Clinical Assessment (OSCA) tool has been used in this simulated environment to assess clinical skills. Recently, however, online delivery of undergraduate nursing courses has become more common. The move from an internal mode of teaching to an online external mode is seen worldwide and poses challenges to staff and students as well as changing the teaching and learning culture of institutions (Philip and Wozniak, 2009). This cultural shift and the resulting diminishing timeframe for students to acquire and practice simulated clinical skills imply that it may become necessary to rethink assessment forms such as the OSCA assessment. This study examines whether or not the OSCA tool developed by Bujack et al. (1991a) is the best tool to be used in this new context, where online teaching is supplemented by very short, annual, intensive periods of study. Skills acquisition theories dictate that time is required to produce an ideal skills acquisition environment (Quinn, 2000) but the time constraints placed on students in such intensive periods of study could influence skills acquisition. This cross-sectional qualitative study used semi-structured interviews and focus groups to collect data. 65% of the nursing faculty participated in the study. The teaching of the Bachelor of Nursing (BN) occurred on two campuses and staff from both areas participated. This group of nurse academics was employed across the range of academic levels (from lecturer to professor) at the University. Data analysis followed a generic thematic analysis framework. Findings in this study show that there are a variety of attitudes and underpinning beliefs amongst staff in relation to the OSCAs. Doubts were raised in regard to the suitability of the use of the OSCA tool in this setting. It also became apparent during this study that the OSCA tool possibly serves purposes other than an assessment tool.

Infection prevention and control: Who is the judge, you or the guidelines?:

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes and behaviours of registered nurses and their colleagues around the adoption of standard precautions in order to determine strategies to promote adherence. Design: A qualitative exploratory descriptive design used interviews and focus group to collect data. Setting: Registered nurses and registered midwifes from a tertiary metropolitan hospital took part in the study. Participants: A voluntary sample of 29 adults was recruited from the Australian nursing (n = 25) and midwifery (n = 4) workforce. There were six men (mean age = 36.83 years; SD = 8.93) and 23 women (mean age = 41.36 years; SD = 10.25). Participants were recruited through advertisement on notice boards and emails from unit managers. Results: Thematic analysis revealed five themes but the focus here is on staff judgements which are against the guidelines. Participants indicated that where in their judgement the patient posed no risk and they judged themselves skilled in the procedure, they were justified in deviating from the guidelines. Some staff judgements appeared to be self-protecting, while others were irrational and inconsistent. Conclusions: Despite use of standard precautions being mandated, staff often deviated from them based on their own assessment of the situation or the patient. Any deviance from the guidelines is of concern but especially so when staff take it upon themselves to apply their own criteria or judgements. These results also suggest there may be some organisational inadequacies with regards to training and supervision of staff.