4.3 Review

Learning Outcomes Attributed to Prelicensure Clinical Education in Nursing A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research

Journal

NURSE EDUCATOR
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 26-30

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001097

Keywords

clinical education; clinical learning environment; prelicensure nursing students; qualitative research

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a systematic review of qualitative research on student learning in traditional clinical models. The results indicate that the current research on the learning outcomes of clinical education is insufficient to provide evidence-based recommendations for traditional clinical education.
Background: Educators agree that clinical experiences are vital to the development of a graduate nurse; however, there is little research on student learning outcomes related to these experiences. Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine qualitative studies of student learning in traditional clinical models. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Nine electronic databases were searched using 43 search terms. Full-text review was completed on 109 articles, with 26 undergoing critical appraisal. Results: Only 6 qualitative studies reported learning outcomes attributed to clinical educationmodels, focusing on experiences in foreign clinical placements, nurse-run clinics, the night shift, transition to professional identity, practicing as a clinical dyad, and development of caring skills. Conclusions: The results of the systematic review of qualitative research that studied outcomes of prelicensure clinical education were insufficient to provide recommendations for traditional clinical education that are supported by evidence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available