Co-teaching in medicine and nursing in training nurse anesthetists: a before-and-after controlled study.
Clinical teaching
Co-teaching
Medicine
Nurse anesthetist
Nursing
Nursing education
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Nov 2023
12 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
01
02
2023
accepted:
31
10
2023
medline:
14
11
2023
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
12
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clarifying the effectiveness of co-teaching in medicine and nursing (CMN) is important as it is crucial in clinical practice to improve the quality of patient care and prognosis. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of CMN in nurse anesthetist training. The study comprised a 6-month training session and a before-and-after controlled study. In total, 59 nurses were recruited. The first 30 nurses were enrolled in the conventional single-teaching in nursing (SN) group and only took nursing-related courses. The next 29 students were enrolled in the CMN group and received both general medical and nursing-specific curricula. Before and after training, medical and nursing collaboration competency scores and knowledge scores were compared between the two groups. At the end of the study, qualitative comments on teaching satisfaction and clinical reasoning skills improvement were queried, and content analysis was performed. Participants in the CMN group outperformed those in the SN group in tests of medical and nursing collaboration abilities as well as knowledge. The CMN group outperformed the SN group in terms of teaching satisfaction evaluation, particularly in terms of fostering learning in the anesthetist specialty, improving clinical practice, fostering motivation, and influencing how people think about challenges at work. Furthermore, participants in the CMN group felt that their clinical reasoning abilities had improved. In comparison to the SN group, the CMN group had enhanced outcomes of patient care, medical and nursing collaboration, and clinical reasoning skills.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clarifying the effectiveness of co-teaching in medicine and nursing (CMN) is important as it is crucial in clinical practice to improve the quality of patient care and prognosis. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of CMN in nurse anesthetist training.
METHOD
METHODS
The study comprised a 6-month training session and a before-and-after controlled study. In total, 59 nurses were recruited. The first 30 nurses were enrolled in the conventional single-teaching in nursing (SN) group and only took nursing-related courses. The next 29 students were enrolled in the CMN group and received both general medical and nursing-specific curricula. Before and after training, medical and nursing collaboration competency scores and knowledge scores were compared between the two groups. At the end of the study, qualitative comments on teaching satisfaction and clinical reasoning skills improvement were queried, and content analysis was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Participants in the CMN group outperformed those in the SN group in tests of medical and nursing collaboration abilities as well as knowledge. The CMN group outperformed the SN group in terms of teaching satisfaction evaluation, particularly in terms of fostering learning in the anesthetist specialty, improving clinical practice, fostering motivation, and influencing how people think about challenges at work. Furthermore, participants in the CMN group felt that their clinical reasoning abilities had improved.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison to the SN group, the CMN group had enhanced outcomes of patient care, medical and nursing collaboration, and clinical reasoning skills.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37953254
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04827-8
pii: 10.1186/s12909-023-04827-8
pmc: PMC10641995
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
856Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2022 Nov;78(11):3696-3709
pubmed: 35774006
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 19;21(3):e12127
pubmed: 30888328
J Interprof Care. 2017 May;31(3):307-316
pubmed: 28276841
Int Nurs Rev. 2019 Sep;66(3):404-415
pubmed: 30768709
J Perianesth Nurs. 2001 Dec;16(6):347-52
pubmed: 11740775
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Aug 30;22(1):651
pubmed: 36042449
J Clin Anesth. 2016 May;30:51-8
pubmed: 27041264
J Nurs Manag. 2018 Nov;26(8):1083-1090
pubmed: 30198624
Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Jan;35(1):125-31
pubmed: 25194469
J Nurs Adm. 2017 Mar;47(3):165-171
pubmed: 28157818
BMC Nurs. 2022 Aug 25;21(1):239
pubmed: 36008834
Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Apr;99:104775
pubmed: 33549958
Mil Med. 2020 Sep 18;185(9-10):e1822-e1828
pubmed: 32601667
J Nurses Prof Dev. 2013 Jan-Feb;29(1):8-15
pubmed: 23486150
J Clin Nurs. 2017 Dec;26(23-24):4065-4079
pubmed: 28557238
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2008 May-Jun;16(3):425-31
pubmed: 18695817
Nurse Educ Today. 2020 Nov;94:104575
pubmed: 32942247
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2012 Mar;26(1):17-21
pubmed: 22559953
J Nurses Prof Dev. 2017 Sep/Oct;33(5):240-246
pubmed: 28891879
Int Nurs Rev. 2013 Sep;60(3):291-302
pubmed: 23961790
Nurse Educ Today. 2017 Sep;56:6-12
pubmed: 28601724
Int J Nurs Pract. 2015 Dec;21(6):820-30
pubmed: 24821020
J Nurs Adm. 2011 Apr;41(4):168-71
pubmed: 21430465
Med Teach. 2019 Apr;41(4):433-440
pubmed: 30091645
Scand J Caring Sci. 2022 Mar;36(1):71-80
pubmed: 33559915