3.8 Article

Mental health content of comprehensive pre-registration nursing curricula in Australia

Journal

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN NURSING
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 519-530

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1744987109347041

Keywords

clinical agencies; clinical hours; mental health nursing; pre-registration nursing curricula; theory hours; survey

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2008 the final report of the Mental Health Nurse Education Taskforce was released. This paper presents the findings of the report's survey into the mental health content of generic pre-registration nursing curricula in Australia. A questionnaire was sent to all nursing schools providing pre-registration curricula. Results indicate curricula contained a wide range of mental health theory and clinical hours. While the majority of universities incorporated most of the 20 key topics recommended by the Mental Health Nurse Education Taskforce in their courses, few addressed issues such as Indigenous mental health. There was considerable competition for placements between universities, and concern about the quality of some placements. Nurse academics with formal qualifications in mental health and specialist clinical mental health nurses were mainly involved in teaching theory. Specialist mental health clinicians and clinical educators were the key groups engaged in students' clinical education, and preceptorship was the most common form of clinical supervision. Consumers and carers had limited involvement in the development or provision of mental health content of pre-registration curricula. Greater attention is needed to increasing the mental health content in pre-registration curricula. Furthermore, initiatives should be developed to increase access to clinical placements and reduce competition for places between universities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available