PubMed · 16044861
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Paul Martin, Phil Higton, Hilary Scholefield. 2005. Close encounters.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16044861/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This paper reports on the contribution of six nurse educators to embed enquiry-led learning in a pre-registration nursing programme. Their focus was to evaluate student and facilitator perspectives of a hybrid model of problem-based learning, a form of enquiry-based learning and to focus on facilitators' perceptions of its longer-term utility with large student groups. Problem-based learning is an established learning strategy in healthcare internationally; however, insufficient evidence of its effectiveness with large groups of pre-registration students exists. Fourth Generation Evaluation was used, applying the Nominal Group Technique and Focus Group interviews, for data collection. In total, four groups representing different branches of pre-registration students (n = 121) and 15 facilitators participated. Students identified seven strengths and six areas for development related to problem-based learning. Equally, analysis of facilitators' discussions revealed several themes related to strengths and challenges. The consensus was that using enquiry aided the development of independent learning and encouraged deeper exploration of nursing and allied subject material. However, problems and frustrations were identified in relation to large numbers of groups, group dynamics, room and library resources and personal development. The implications of these findings for longer-term utility with large student groups are discussed.
UNLABELLED: OBJECTIVE (OF THE STUDY): To provide data on the views of chief pharmacists (CPs) and primary care trust pharmacists (PCTPs) on the risks and concerns surrounding supplementary prescribing. SETTING: Secondary and primary care within England. METHOD: Postal questionnaire surveys of chief pharmacists and primary care trust pharmacists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Significance of the association between the extracted factors. RESULTS: The response rate was 68% for both the primary care (183/271) and secondary care surveys (97/143). The survey tool was subjected to factor analysis and reliability testing. For both sectors, the three factors that were extracted described concerns over the training model for supplementary prescribing, concerns about the professional competency/responsibility of the supplementary prescribers once trained, and positivity about the implementation of supplementary prescribing. For both sectors, as trusts have more experience of supplementary prescribing by nurses, the respondents had less concerns about the supplementary prescribing training model. For secondary care, as the total number of pharmacists employed within the trust increases, the respondents had less concerns over the limitations of the supplementary prescribing training model. CONCLUSION: Although both sectors have concerns over the training model for supplementary prescribing and also professional competence and responsibility once trainees qualify, there is overall a positive attitude towards supplementary prescribing and there is a belief that pharmacists wish to take this role on.
BACKGROUND: The UK Medical Research Council has proposed that complex interventions should be tested in exploratory trials prior to a full-scale trial so as to better define the intervention and test the feasibility of components such as recruitment. It is not clear to what extent this is being done. This study aimed to determine to what extent complex interventions are tested prior to a full-scale trial and whether more or different testing would have led to a different intervention being used in the trial. METHODS: Email survey of the authors of complex intervention trials published in seven major journals in 2004. RESULTS: 72% (50/69) of eligible authors replied. Eight authors did not consider their interventions to be complex. The majority of respondents' complex interventions were tested (34/42): some extensively. Conversely, only 17 of the 34 published reports describing these trials mention testing. Two-thirds (22/34) of those testing their interventions did not believe that more or different testing would have produced a more effective intervention. 31% (13/42) of all authors did believe further testing would have led to improvements. Five respondents mentioned a lack of funding as a reason for not doing more testing. CONCLUSION: Complex interventions are generally tested prior to their evaluation in a full-scale trial, although the amount of testing varies. Testing is often not described in trial reports, which makes it hard to judge whether a trial result could be improved with a better intervention, or whether further work with a different intervention is required.