j nedt 2015 02 003 (1)

Prévia do material em texto

Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 740–745
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education Today
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/nedt
Supporting nursing student supervision: An assessment of an innovative
approach to supervisor support
Mark Browning a,⁎, Leeanne Pront b,1
a School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, PO Box 1071, Narre Warren, Vic 3805, Australia
b School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, GPO Box 852, Renmark, SA 5341, Australia
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9904 7218.
E-mail addresses: mark.browning@monash.edu (M. B
leeanne.pront@flinders.edu.au (L. Pront).
1 Tel.: +61 8 8586 1024; fax: +61 8586 3668.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.003
0260-6917/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
s u m m a r y
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Accepted 2 February 2015
Keywords:
Clinical supervisor
Registered nurse
Nurse
Undergraduate nursing student
Education package
The responsibility for clinical supervision is recognised by both the nursing literature and the Australian Nursing
and Midwifery Council, through an expectation that RNs will provide support and facilitate student learning in
the clinical environment (Atack et al., 2000; Gray and Smith, 2000; Brammer, 2005; Australian Nursing and
Midwifery Council, 2006; Hallin and Danielson, 2008). RNs identify with and acknowledge the need for the
supervisory role and are willing participants however, request strategies to guide and support students in the
clinical environment (Bourbonnais and Kerr, 2007; Hallin and Danielson, 2008).
Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide a means of support to clinical supervisors of nursing students
through a computer-based clinical supervisor educational package (CSEP) and to test the effectiveness of the
CSEP.
Design: The effectiveness of the CSEPwas determined by a pre-test–post-test evaluation sheet that included open
and Likert scale questions.
Settings: 4 regional hospitals in South Australia, Australia.
Participants: 28 participants completed the questionnaire on their experience with the CSEP.
Methods: Analysis of quantitative data utilised non-parametric testing with SPSS version 20. A Wilcoxon Signed
Rank Test was performed on the Likert scale questions to establish any significant difference between the pre-
and post-tests. The responses to the open-ended questionswere thematically analysed separately by the two au-
thors. The themes were then amalgamated. The results were then compared to find similarities or differences.
Conclusions: The CSEP is an effective education package in promoting increased preparedness to supervise and
increased confidence to promote learning.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Clinical health environments are designed to provide efficient and
up to date health care to their clientele, within which teaching and
learning of nursing students during practice experience occurs. Practice
experience is an opportunity for nursing students to become immersed
in the daily activities of health provision; the day to day functioning
of the venue and work within a team of healthcare providers. Student
support during this experience is overseen by the clinical facilitator
who liaises between the education provider, student and clinical
environment.
The staff members who are providing clinical supervision have the
dual role of providing healthcare to clients and are also responsible for
rowning),
student supervision during delivery of healthcare. Supervisors promote
student engagement and learning in the clinical setting and must also
ensure that the student does not cause harm to clients (ANMC, 2006).
The clinical supervisor, who is employed as a RN is expected to promote
the students ability to link learnt theory to practice (Clare et al., 2002),
often without any formal education or training. Despite this, RNs
are often willing supervisors and aim to guide and support (Dunn and
Hansford, 1997; Pront et al., 2013) student learning opportunities. How-
ever, the education or even framework for the role of supervision is
not readily evident, accessible or if available, is in a format (lengthy
technical document) that is cumbersome and time consuming for
busy clinicians.
Background
Clinical supervisor education has been a prevalent discourse over
the last twenty years within health education (Greenleaf et al., 1994;
Atack et al., 2000; Gray and Smith, 2000; Landmark et al., 2003;
Edwards et al., 2004; Brammer, 2005; Levett-Jones et al., 2006; Zilembo
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.003&domain=pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.003
mailto:mark.browning@monash.edu
mailto:leeanne.pront@flinders.edu.au
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.003
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02606917
741M. Browning, L. Pront / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 740–745
and Monterosso, 2008; Waldock, 2010; Borch et al., 2013). The respon-
sibility for clinical supervision is recognised by both the nursing litera-
ture and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, through an
expectation that RNswill provide support and facilitate student learning
in the clinical environment (Atack et al., 2000; Gray and Smith, 2000;
Brammer, 2005; Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2006;
Hallin and Danielson, 2008). Furthermore, the Australian Nursing and
Midwifery Council competencies (2006) clearly state an expectation
of the RN's role is to support, guide and educate both peers and students
in the clinical arena, yet there are limitedmechanisms for supervisors to
access support (Ohrling and Hallberg, 2001).
Brammer (2005) comprehensively clarifies the Australian interpre-
tation of the supervisor's role, identifying eight distinct perceptions.
The varied interpretation for the supervisory role is significant and
arguably influenced by the ability and confidence of the supervisor
which ultimately influences student learning outcomes (Nolan, 1998;
Gray and Smith, 2000; Kilminster and Jolly, 2000; Lyth, 2000; Sharif
and Masoumi, 2005; Kevin, 2006; Gravani, 2008; Laming, 2010;
Severinsson and Sand, 2010; Borch et al., 2012).
RNs identify with and acknowledge the need for the supervisory role
and arewilling participants however, request strategies to guide and sup-
port students in the clinical environment (Bourbonnais and Kerr, 2007;
Hallin and Danielson, 2008). Such support is particularly important
when students originate from a variety of educational providers each,
with their own requirements for assessment, supervision and foci for stu-
dent engagement. Each educational provider presents their requirements
to the venue in a variety of formats often targeted to an academic rather
than clinical audience and readily available to the clinical facilitator rather
than the clinical supervisor.
The supervisor historically, known as the clinical preceptor actively
supervises and engageswith the student during care provision through-
out each shift (King, 2005; Yonge et al., 2007). Debate and confusion ex-
ists within the literature for clarification of the preceptor or supervisory
role (Zilembo and Monterosso, 2008; Ormansky, 2010; Borch et al.,
2012). Consequently, for the supervisor to provide client care in unison
to promoting student learning and client safety, supervisors require
support (Duffy, 2009). Particularly in areas such as understanding indi-
vidual students scope of practice, learning objectives and strategies
to delivery both positive and negative feedback (Clynes and Raftery,
2008; Green, 2011).
Currently a supportive relationship for the delivery of clinical super-
vision exists between stakeholders and represented by blue arrows in
Fig. 1.
Figure 2 clearly identifies the communication and support pathway
in existence for delivery of nursing students practice experience, illus-
trating student support is via the education provider, clinical facilitator
and RNs. These relationships form a conduit for information transfer
aimed at promotionof a valuable learning experience for students.
Despite these clear relationships and support pathways, RNs anecdotal-
ly reported to the authors of this study, that they felt ill equipped,
and poorly educated to promote student learning in the clinical envi-
ronment. RNs acknowledged individual educational institutions provid-
ed clinical supervision guidelines, expectations and requirements
however, these were presented in a multi-paged formal document.
Fig. 1. Definition of the roles of nursin
Supervisors volunteered they do not access this document due to the
time required to navigate through it, the language utilised within it
and the medium in which it was delivered. Supervisors themselves
wanted an alternative means of accessing information to support nurs-
ing student learning in the clinical environment.
Relationships already exist to support student learning in the clinical
environment yet, RNs did not feel they fully understood what to expect
of a student nor had the confidence to promote student learning. The
red arrow in Fig. 2 identifies the gap perceived by supervisors relating
to communication between supervisors of students and the education
providers ultimately influencing supervisors' perception of students'
scopeof practice and expected learning outcomes. Clarity in the role of su-
pervision is required for success (Drennan, 2002) and currently this is not
evident. Such a communication deficit results in the supervisors' role
being poorly clarified particularly in relation to student expectations
and strategies to provide support and feedback which ultimately influ-
ences learning opportunities and outcomes for the student (Landmark
et al., 2003; Duffy, 2009). Clarification of and education to deliver the su-
pervisor role is questioned by both supervisors and students in a variety
of clinical settings (Dunn and Hansford, 1997; Brammer, 2005; Zilembo
and Monterosso, 2008; Duffy, 2009). Preparation for the role of the clini-
cal supervisor is not always evident or available to supervisors and has
been identified as an issue for nearly twenty years (Byrd et al., 1997;
Dunn and Hansford, 1997; Atack et al., 2000; Gray and Smith, 2000;
Landmark et al., 2003; Brammer, 2005; Levett-Jones et al., 2006; Zilembo
and Monterosso, 2008; Duffy, 2009; Pront et al., 2013).
A resource that offers clinical supervisors access ‘on the run’ to infor-
mation pertinent to their role in supporting and promoting learning in
the clinical setting was urgently required. This research project evolved
from the literature and anecdotal discussion with clinicians who super-
vise students. Consequently, this research team sought to provide an
alternative point of reference for supervisors who guide and support stu-
dent learning in the clinical arena. An interactive modular educational
package for supervisors was developed focusing on ease of access,
efficient information retrieval, identificationof student year level expecta-
tions, examples of provision for feedback and extension for learning. Once
developed the resource was uploaded to each nursing station computer
within the nominated demographic area and an educational session on
its use was provided. Education on use of the package identified the
ease and accessibility of information to inform and guide clinical supervi-
sors. The package was designed to provide supervisors a resource easy to
access, user friendly and accessible to guide supervision in the busy clini-
cal environment. Focusedmoduleswithin the packagemay consequently
influence the consistency in delivery of supervision to students, consis-
tency inutilisation of an adult educational approach for students, promote
concise feedback and support understanding of student's scope of prac-
tice. This study assumed that the users of CSEP would be adult learners;
with a variety of experience (thiswas found to be true from the survey re-
sults). As such, CSEP was based on a constructivist framework in that the
CSEP acknowledges theprevious experiences of the learner (Peters, 2000)
and to build on these experiences. The CSEP seeks to challenge the user,
cause reflection and allow the user to apply the knowledge gained to
the supervision role (Yager, 1991). The CSEP is also modular, in that
it would allow the user to self-direct their learning (Garrison, 1992;
g educators in the clinical setting.
Fig. 2. The current communication and support pathways between education facilities,
placement venues and students.
742 M. Browning, L. Pront / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 740–745
McLachlin-Smith, 1998). Fig. 3 below summarises the potential learning
outcomes from using the CSEP.
The aim of this studywas to provide ameans of support to clinical su-
pervisors of nursing students. Amechanism to bridge the ‘gap’ in commu-
nication of essential information in order to build supervisors knowledge
and confidence in the supervisor role and ultimately empower supervi-
sors to promote student learning in the clinical environment. The devel-
oped support package was tested primarily focusing on its accessibility,
efficiency in time to use and explanatory usefulness for supervisorswant-
ing support for promotion of student learning in the clinical environment.
Themultimedia innovative package offered clear role definition, clarity of
student's scope of practice and tailored to the anecdotal needs of clinical
supervisors.
Methods
A mixed methods approach was applied to establish the CSEP's
usefulness for supervisors. The participants were invited to voluntarily
attend an educational session where the package was presented. A
pre-questionnairewas conducted to establish current perceptions of su-
pervision, followed by an educational session on the CSEP, culminating
in a post-questionnaire to inform this study. The questionnaire was in-
formed by the literature which identified that supervisors were seeking
support, guidance and preparedness to promote learning in the clinical
setting. Particularly, strategies to guide and support student learning,
clarification of each year level scope of practice and expectations of
Fig. 3. The intended learning outco
student practice. The Questionnaire format included five point Likert
and open responses. The initial six questions sought demographic and
educational backgrounds of participants. The quantitative questions
on pre- and post-surveywere constructed to reflect the issues identified
from the literature (see above) and were the same on both pre- and
post-questionnaires to allow comparison. The qualitative aspect of the
pre-questionnaire was designed to capture the supervisor's perceptions
of student scope of practice, expectations and confidence in their role
pre- and post-engagement with the CSEP tool. The participants were
prompted with questions such as “The three most important things
that I believe are important for nursing students to learn in the clinical
environment are:”. The space provided for open-ended responses was
the same in each test. Furthermore, data collection occurred on the
day the tool was presented to staff.
Analysis of quantitative data utilised non-parametric testing with
SPSS version 20. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was performed on the
Likert scale questions to establish any significant difference between
the pre- and post-tests. Such an approach provided triangulation of
findings to confirm the voice of the participants was clearly represented
across both paradigms. Qualitative datawas collated and analysed using
thematic analysis, where recurring notions formed themes to represent
participant responses.
The participants totalled n = 28, each was not anonymous within
their own setting, however the data collected via questionnaires was
de-identified and participation was voluntary with the option to with-
draw at any stage without coercion. Ethics approval was successfully
gained through Flinders University SBREC project number 5170.
Results
Demographic
The majority of the participants were over the age of 41 years (75%
41+ years),with one third being over 50 years old and 75% identifying
their current role as a RN or higher (CN, CNC). The older nature of this
group leads to an assumption that a greater proportion of the participants
were hospital trained RNs and 50% identified this to be the case. Signifi-
cantly more than 75% of this group had actively engaged in the supervi-
sion role of nursing students for four or more years.
mes of each module of CPEP.
743M. Browning, L. Pront / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 740–745
Quantitative Findings
The educational resource was situated on the nurses' station
computer desk top, available and accessible at any time to all staff, la-
belled Clinical Supervisors Support Package (CSEP). From a quantitative
perspective the findings present three key themes: increased prepared-
ness to supervise; increased confidence to promote learning; and use-
fulness of the CSEP.
Quantitatively the results presented in the following tables represent
the percentage of the participants that agree with the statements (A–G),
with Table 1 being the pre-test answers and Table 2 being the post-test
answers. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was carried out on the pre–post-
questions to establish a statistically significant difference.
When the participants were asked if they agreed with statement A
“I am confident and fully prepared to supervise nursing students in the
clinical environment”, 68%(n = 19) agreed with this statement before
using the tool. After engagement with the CSEP 96% (n = 26) agree
with this question. The result is statistically significant (z = −2.31,
p b 0.05) and the effect size was medium (r = 0.327).
Statement B asked the participants to rank themselves according to
their confidence “I am confident in promoting critical thinking in a nurs-
ing student”. Again, 68% (n = 19) agreed with this statement in the pre-
test and 96% (n = 26) in the post-test. The result was statistically signif-
icant (z =−2.27, p b 0.05) with a medium effect size (r = 0.327).
Statement C another confidence question asked “I am confident in
assessing a nursing students competency at each year level” with 61%
(n = 17) agreeing in the pre-test. While the post-test responses
changed to 84% (n = 24) in agreement, this shift was not statistically
significant.
When the participants were asked if they agreed with statement D
“I am confident in promoting learning and opportunities for learning in
the clinical environment”, many responded positively with 82% (n =
23). In the post-questionnaire, this had increased only slightly to 92%
(n = 25), which was not statistically significant.
Statement E “I respect and listen to nursing students learning needs
and objectives” resulted in 93% (n = 26) agreeing with the pretest
statement. Interestingly, 100% (n = 27) agreed with the statement in
the post-test despite the increase not being statistically significant.
When asked if they agreed with statement F “I have a clear under-
standing of expected year levels learning objectives”, 21%(n = 6) agreed
before engagement with the CSEP. The post-test result increased to 96%
(n = 26), a result statistically significant (z = −3.7, p b 0.005) with an
effect size of large (r = 0.558).
Table 1
Level of agreement from pre-test questionnaire.
Statement G “I have a clear understanding of how to support nursing
students in the clinical environment”, 54% (n = 15) of the participants
agree with this statement pretest. The post-test increased to 93%
(n = 25) which was statistically significant (z = −2.31, p b 0.05)
with an effect size of medium (r = 0.348).
Themes
Increased Preparedness to Supervise
Engagement with the CSEP, afforded supervisors a ‘clearer under-
standing of their role’ (participant 12). Understanding achieved through
clarification of student, supervisor and educational provider roles en-
abled supervisors to better understood their role and responsibilities
when supporting students during clinical practice experience. The sig-
nificance of this understanding is supported by the analysed shift in
statement A. Information provided within this package increased
supervisor's awareness of ‘how to approach students’ (participant 23)
with an educational focus to their practice.
Increased understanding of the role increased confidence in
‘allowing students to take charge of their own learning’ (participant
12). The increased confidence to allow the student to actively own
their own learning, appeared founded in the ability to source informa-
tion easily through the CSEP. The CSEP offered a framework for roles,
and ‘clarification of student expectations’ (participant 13) along with
strategies to promote student learning. An example of specific support
identified in the CSEP is presented by participants 5, 10, 16 and 27
who recognised how they could link the ANMC competencies in order
to support student learning.
Information provided by the CSEPmeant, supervisors felt empowered
to make changes in their approach to deliver supervision and expressed
examples such as offering students opportunities to ‘make decisions’
(participant 4) related to nursing care delivery. In recognising students
needed to make decisions, the participants were also cognizant of offer-
ing students ‘more time…to ask questions’ (participant 4) promoting
student's ability to rationalise the decision for care or action undertaken.
These findings suggest supervisors as a result of accessing the CSEP had a
clearer understanding of how to support nursing student learning in the
clinical setting (Statement G). Insight into the effectiveness of the pack-
age culminated in the following statement, I have ‘realised thatmy super-
vision skills have hindered my students in the past’ (participant 14). The
CSEP increased preparedness for supervisors to promote learning at the
targeted year level and scope of practice for individual students as
Table 2
Level of agreement from post-test questionnaire.
744 M. Browning, L. Pront / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 740–745
identified by the increased agreement with statement F (I have a clear
understanding of expected year levels learning objectives).
Increased Confidence to Promote Learning
The insight the CSEP offered the participants increased understanding
of the supervision role which resulted in empowering supervisors with
the confidence to promote student learning during their clinical experi-
ence. Supervisors recognised that ‘to communicate well’ with students
promoted students ‘confidence on their delivery’ (participant 5) of care.
In order to promote learning therewas also recognition that communica-
tion was founded in the student's relationship with their supervisor. Im-
portantly, communication during delivery of nursing care with the
student through ‘explaining what I am doing’ was also recognised by
this participant (5) as an opportunity to promote education. Notably, a
shift of participants' recognition in asking questions as important for stu-
dent learningwas identifiedwithfive acknowledging this as significant in
the pre-test and fourteen in the post-test. Such statements as ‘I will try
and ask and explain tasks and skills’ (participant 12) and encouraging stu-
dents to ‘find their own answers’ (participant 12) and ‘look for learning
opportunities’ (participant 3) showed an increased confidence not evi-
dent in the pre-questionnaire. RNs now felt able to encourage students
development through questioning students ‘linking all aspects of care
provided’ (participant 5) during care delivery. The descriptors provided
were supported by the increased agreement statement B (I am confident
in promoting critical thinking in a nursing student). Supervisors suggest
the information provided within this supportive package increased their
preparedness to support studentswith an educational focus to their prac-
ticewith 70% of participants responding that they ‘do you believe this tool
will increase your confidence to supervise students’.
Usefulness of the CSEP
Usefulness of the CSEP was established throughseveral questions
within the questionnaire. The first asked the participants: ‘what will
you do differently in your role as a result of this tool?’ The participants
presented a variety of responses which when thematically coded and
included the following:
• Posing questions. The CSEP presented examples for supervisors to
question students practice in order to establish their understanding
and promote critical thinking and development of rationales for prac-
tice. This finding was the most prevalent notion offered by 11
participants included comments such as ‘ask more questions e.g.:
what would you do next and why’ (participant 6); ‘let them speak
more and explain what their doing’ (participant 14).
• Time. Six participants individually recognised students required time
from their supervisors in order to explore ideas, pose questions and
reflect on the activities undertaken through comments such as
‘spend more time discussing and talking…’ (participant 26).
• Role clarity. A mechanism for supervisors to clarify their role and that
of the student was offered through the CSEP. The ease of access to the
package assisted supervisors in promoting the students ability to ‘Un-
pack skills…and challenge learning’ (participant 16) relevant to the
students learning. Furthermore, the clarification of each year levels
expected scope of practice provided supervisors boundaries within
which to promote student learning and engagement opportunities.
The culminating different perspective as a result of the CSEP was pre-
sented from participant 27 who stated ‘show more and not take for
granted that they all know what I know’.
Discussion
Clinical supervision in nursing is considered a role where the RN su-
pervises and facilitates student learning through guidance and support
in the clinical arena, providing links between theory and practice (Atack
et al., 2000; Gray and Smith, 2000; Brammer, 2005; Hallin and
Danielson, 2008). However, preparation for the role of supervision is
not always evident, available and is questioned by supervisors and
students (Byrd et al., 1997; Dunn and Hansford, 1997; Atack et al.,
2000; Gray and Smith, 2000; Landmark et al., 2003; Brammer, 2005;
Levett-Jones et al., 2006; Zilembo and Monterosso, 2008; Duffy, 2009;
Pront et al., 2013).
Educational institutions are professionally, morally and ethically
bound to support the supervision and promotion of learning for nursing
students in the clinical environment. Historically it is an expectation
that RNs supervise other health professionals alongwith students howev-
er, RNs are not always provided the education or process within which
this supervision occurs. Therefore for a supervisor to provide client care
in unison to promoting student learning and client safety, the supervisor
requires support (Duffy, 2009). Particularly in the understanding of indi-
vidual students scope of practice, learning objectives and strategies to de-
livery both positive and negative feedback (Clynes and Raftery, 2008;
Green, 2011).
745M. Browning, L. Pront / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 740–745
This study aimed to provide that support through a simple, self-
directed, asynchronous learning package, situated on ward computers
(CSEP) that covered the following areas: examples for provision of feed-
back, student scope of practice (particularly year level differences), role
clarification and identification and strategies for potential issues. The
CSEP is innovative in that it is self-directed, uses video examples, uses
ward-accessible resources, modular and is targeted in its design to appeal
to the busy clinician. The study found that the CSEPwas able to effectively
and efficiently increase the confidence and understanding of the RN to
perform the role of clinical supervisor. Evidence from both thematic and
statistical analysis that identified two key areas of impact: increased pre-
paredness to supervise and increased confidence to promote learning.
The supervisors also identified that the CSEP was useful for them to pro-
vide supervision which promoted student learning.
Previous studies (Nolan, 1998; Gray and Smith, 2000; Kilminster and
Jolly, 2000; Lyth, 2000; Sharif and Masoumi, 2005; Kevin, 2006;
Gravani, 2008; Laming, 2010; Severinsson and Sand, 2010; Borch et al.,
2012) have shown that supervisors significantly impact a student's expe-
rience of placement. However, support afforded by the CSEP to the super-
vising RN has the potential to enhance the student experience by
influencing the outcome of learning opportunities along with presenting
supervisorymentors fromwhich students can emulatewhen they in turn
supervise future students.
Although the CSEP tool demonstrated an ability to have a significant
positive impact on the nurses' confidence to supervise, there are limita-
tions of the tool and this study. The study limitations include the follow-
ing: a small participant group situated in a rural location, across four
rural hospitals; this may limit the significance and transferability to
other settings. The study pre- and post-tests were also carried out on
the same day and a follow-up questionnaire to determine the ongoing
use of the tool is planned. The questionnaire was also not been tested
for validity or reliability. It is also pertinent to acknowledge the re-
searchers and participants have a professional relationship with and
among each other; however attendance to the educational sessions, use
of the educational resource and completion of the questionnaires were
entirely voluntary. By using a mixed approach and both researchers
being independent from each other, collaborative analysis of data was
used to limit research bias.
The CSEP in its current form has some issues as it is based in
PowerPoint, which presents potential compatibility issues. The current
format is also static, preventing the ability to review and update the pack-
age.Many supportingdocumentswerenot included (such as clinical chal-
lenge paperwork) tominimise the size of the programme. Future versions
of the tool should be web-based, more modular, have increased access to
various paperwork and possible links for interested individuals to further
their learning and time efficiency and simplicity should not be sacrificed
to achieve this. This study has demonstrated that the CSEP is effective de-
spite these limitations and future versions of this tool could prove an in-
valuable resource for clinical areas who provide supervision to the
future health workforce.
Conclusion
This study devised an education package to directly target the nurses
who supervise undergraduate nursing students. This study aimed to pro-
vide that support through a simple, self-directed, asynchronous learning
package, situated on ward computers (CSEP) that covered the following
areas: examples for provision of feedback, student scope of practice (par-
ticularly year level differences), role clarification and identification and
strategies for potential issues. The study found that the CSEP was able to
effectively and efficiently increase the confidence and understanding of
the RN to perform the role of clinical supervisor, especially in the areas
of preparedness to supervise and confidence to promote learning. Future
iterations of this education package would be more dynamic if the pack-
age was web-based. This education package allows education providers
to engage supervising nurses, closing the gap in the support network
(Fig. 2).
References
Atack, L., et al., 2000. Student and staff relationship in a clinical practice model: impact on
learning. J. Nurs. Educ. 39, 387–392.
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2006. ANMC National Competency Standards
for the Registered Nurse.
Brammer, J., 2005. A phenomenographic study of registered nurses' understanding of their
role in student learning — an Australian perspective. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 43, 963–973.
Borch, et al., 2013. Group supervision to strengthen nurses in their preceptor role in the
bachelor nursing education – Perceptions beforeand after participation. Nurse Edu-
cation in Practice 13 (2), 101–105.
Bourbonnais, F.F., Kerr, E., 2007 Aug. Preceptoring a student in the final clinical place-
ment: reflections from nurses in a Canadian Hospital. J Clin Nurs. 16 (8), 1543–1549.
Byrd, C.Y., et al., 1997. Student and preceptor perceptions of factors in a successful learn-
ing partnership. J. Prof. Nurs. 13 (6), 344–351.
Clare, J., et al., 2002. Curriculum Clinical Education Recruitment Transition & Retention in
Nursing. School of Nursing & Midwifery, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.
Clynes, M.P., Raftery, S.E., 2008 Nov. Feedback: an essential element of student learning in
clinical practice. Nurse Educ Pract 8 (6), 405–411.
Duffy, A., 2009. Guiding students through reflective practice — the preceptors experi-
ences. A qualitative descriptive study. Nurse Educ. Pract. 9, 166–175.
Dunn, S., Hansford, B., 1997. Undergraduate nursing students' perceptions of their clinical
learning environment. J. Adv. Nurs. 25, 1299–1306.
Edwards, H., et al., 2004. Impact of clinical placement location on nursing students'
competence and preparedness for practice. Nurse Educ. Today 24, 248–255.
Garrison, D.R., 1992. Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: an
analysis of the responsibility and control issues. Adult Educ. Q. 42 (3), 136–148.
Gravani, M.N., 2008. Academics and practitioners: partners in generating knowledge or
citizens of two different worlds? Teach. Teach. Educ. 24 (3), 649–659.
Gray, M.A., Smith, L.N., 2000. The qualities of an effective mentor from the student nurse's
perspective: findings from a longitudinal qualitative study. J. Adv. Nurs. 32 (6),
1542–1549.
Green, H.J., 2011. Skills Training and Self-Esteem: Educational and Clinical Perspectives on
Giving Feedback to Clinical Trainees. Behaviour Change 28 (2), 87–96.
Greenleaf, C., et al., 1994. Learning from our diverse students: helping teachers rethink
problematic teaching and learning situations. Teach. Teach. Educ. 10 (5), 521–541.
Hallin, K., Danielson, E., 2008. Being a personal preceptor for nursing students: registered
nurses' experiences before and after introduction of a preceptor model. J. Adv. Nurs.
65 (1), 161–174.
Kevin, J., 2006. Problems in the supervision and assessment of student nurses: can clinical
placement be improved? Contemp. Nurse 22, 36–45.
Kilminster, S.M., Jolly, B.C., 2000. Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: a liter-
ature review. Med. Educ. 34, 827–840.
King, S., 2005. The nursing preceptor role, The Pursuit of Excellence. RDNS Research Unit
(ISSN: 1449-4396) p. 36.
Laming, A., 2010. The effectiveness of clinical supervision in an undergraduate medical
imaging programme: a literature review. N. Z. J. Med. Radiat. Technol. 53 (3), 19–24.
Landmark, B.T., et al., 2003. Clinical supervision — factors defined by nurses as influential
upon the development of competence and skills in supervision. J. Clin. Nurs. 12,
834–841.
Levett-Jones, T., et al., 2006. Enhancing nursing students' clinical placement experiences:
a quality improvement project. Contemp. Nurse 23 (1), 58–71.
Lyth, G.M., 2000. Clinical supervision: a concept analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 31 (3), 722–729.
McLachlin-Smith, C., 1998. Designing for dialogue at a distance: reflections on how to cre-
ate and maintain an effective teaching–learning relationship with students.
J. Distance Learn. 4 (1), 11–22.
Nolan, C.A., 1998. Learning on clinical placement: the experiences of six Australian
student nurses. Nurse Educ. Today 18, 622–629.
Öhrling, K., Hallberg, I.R., 2001. The meaning of preceptorship: nurses' lived experience of
being a preceptor, Journal of Advanced Nursing. 33 (4), 530–540.
Omansky, G.L., 2010. Staff nurses' experiences as preceptors and mentors: an integrative
review. Journal of Nursing Management 18, 697–703.
Peters, M., 2000. Does constructivist epistemology have a place in nurse education?
J. Nurs. Educ. 39 (4), 166–172.
Pront, L., et al., 2013. Living and learning in a rural environment: a nursing student
perspective. Nurse Educ. Today 33, 281–285.
Severinsson, E., Sand, A., 2010. Evaluation of the clinical supervision and professional de-
velopment of student nurses. J. Nurs. Manag. 18.
Sharif, F., Masoumi, S., 2005. A qualitative study of nursing student experiences of clinical
practice. BMC Nurs. 4 (6).
Waldock, J., 2010. Facilitating Student Learning in Clinical Practice: Many Clinical
Nurses Believe They are Ill Prepared and Poorly Supported to Supervise Students.
Heavy Workloads Also Prevent Effective Teaching and Learning Taking Place. Kai
Tiaki, Nursing New Zealand.
Yager, R.E., 1991. The constructivist learning model: towards real reform in science
education. Sci. Teach. 58 (7), 52–57.
Yonge, O., Billay, D., Myrick, F., et al., 2007. Preceptorship and Mentorship: Not Merely a
Matter of Semantics. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 4 (1)
published online.
Zilembo, M., Monterosso, L., 2008. Towards a conceptual framework for preceptorship in
the clinical education of undergraduate nursing students. Contemp. Nurse 30 (1),
89–94.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf3000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf3000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf5000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf5000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf6000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf6000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf9000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf9000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf1000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf1000
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2500
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2500
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf2015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0260-6917(15)00057-X/rf0140
	Supporting nursing student supervision: An assessment of an innovative approach to supervisor support
	Introduction
	Background
	Methods
	Results
	Demographic
	Quantitative Findings
	Themes
	Increased Preparedness to Supervise
	Increased Confidence to Promote Learning
	Usefulness of the CSEP
	Discussion
	Conclusion
	References