Experiences using an instrument for non-technical skills in nurse anaesthesia education: a focus group study
Tóm tắt
Although there is an increasing amount of research on the use of structured behavioural assessment instruments for non-technical skills in a simulation or clinical setting, there is currently little research into how healthcare professionals experience using these instruments. The structured behavioural assessment instrument, Nurse Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills-Norway, has recently been introduced to nurse anaesthesia education as a means of developing and assessing non-technical skills in clinical practice. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the experiences of Norwegian student nurse anaesthetists, their mentors and clinical supervisors on using the instrument in clinical practice. This study has a qualitative descriptive design. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with four focus groups comprising twelve student nurse anaesthetists and thirteen mentors and clinical supervisors. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis and an inductive approach. Six categories were identified that represented the manifest content. One main theme: Forging a path towards clinical excellence was identified representing the latent content, and three themes that described the participants’ experiences with using the instrument: Promotion of excellent non-technical skills: Raising awareness of non-technical skills ensured professional suitability and shaping of a professional identity; internalizing the skills could lead to changes in behaviour. Promotion of cooperative learning: Mentoring was more structured, based on a common language and understanding and clearly defined roles; measurable progress enabled a more reliable and objective evaluation. Promotion of organizational acceptance: A lack of familiarity with the instrument, and challenges with scoring and the terminology impeded acceptance. Increased awareness of non-technical skills when using Nurse Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills-Norway contributes to a professionalization of the nurse anaesthetist role and mentoring/learning process in nurse anaesthesia education. Using Nurse Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills-Norway promotes the ideal of clinical excellence, not only as an assessment instrument but also by guiding the student’s learning process. Despite a high level of commitment to using the instrument there is a need to promote further acceptance in the anaesthetic departments.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Higham H, Greig PR, Rutherford J, Vincent L, Young D, Vincent C. Observer-based tools for non-technical skills assessment in simulated and real clinical environments in healthcare: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(8):672–86. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008565.
Jones CPL, Fawker-Corbett J, Groom P, Morton B, Lister C, Mercer SJ. Human factors in preventing complications in anaesthesia: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(S1):12–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14136.
Flin R, O’Connor P, Crichton M. Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2008. x, 317 s. : ill p. ISBN 978-0-7546-4600-6.
Larsson J, Holmstrom IK. How excellent anaesthetists perform in the operating theatre: a qualitative study on non-technical skills. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(1):115–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes359.
Herion C, Egger L, Greif R, Violato C. Validating international CanMEDS-based standards defining education and safe practice of nurse anesthetists. Int Nurs Rev. 2019;66(3):404–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12503.
Jeon Y, Lahtinen P, Meretoja R, Leino-Kilpi H. Anaesthesia nursing education in the Nordic countries: Literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(5):680–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.01.015.
AANA. Scope of Nurse Anesthesia Practice: American Association of Nurse Anesthetists website. 2020. (https://www.aana.com/docs/default-source/practice-aana-com-web-documents-(all)/scope-of-nurse-anesthesia-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=250049b1_6 Accessed: 24 Mar 2020).
Ringvold EM, Bekkevold M, Bruun AG, Borke WB, Finjarn TJ, Haugen AS, et al. Norwegian standard for the safe practice of anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62(3):411–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13066.
IFNA. Standards of Education, Practice and Monitoring: International Federation of Nurse Anesthetists. 2016. (http://ifna.site/download/ifna-standards-of-education-practice-and-monitoring-2016/ Accessed 01 Mar 2017).
Perry RN. Role modeling excellence in clinical nursing practice. Nurse Educ Pract. 2009;9(1):36–44.
Flynn FM, Bing-Jonsson PC, Tønnessen S, Valeberg BT. Educating for excellence: A cohort study on assessing student nurse anesthetists’ non-technical skills in clinical practice. AANA journal. 2022;90(1):7–15 (in press).
Jølstad AL, Røsnæs ER, Severinsson E, Lyberg A. A Paradigm Shift in Nurse Specialist Clinical Supervision—Implementation of a Competence Program. SAGE Open Nursing. 2019;5:2377960819844366. https://doi.org/10.1177/2377960819844366.
Jokelainen M, Turunen H, Tossavainen K, Jamookeeah D, Coco K. A systematic review of mentoring nursing students in clinical placements. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(19–20):2854–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03571.x.
Perry RN. Role modeling excellence in clinical nursing practice. Nurse Educ Pract. 2009;9(1):36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2008.05.001.
O’Donnell D, Cook N, Black P. Person-centred nursing education. In: McCormack B, McCance T, editors. Person-Centred Practice in Nursing and Health Care: Theory and Practice. Oxford: John Wiley & sons; 2016. p. 99–117.
Panitz T. Collaborative versus cooperative learning. 1996. (http://colccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/a_definition_of_collaborative_vs_cooperative_learning.pdf Accessed: 30 Jun 2021).
Tolsgaard MG, Kulasegaram KM, Ringsted CV. Collaborative learning of clinical skills in health professions education: the why, how, when and for whom. Med Educ. 2016;50(1):69–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12814.
Kirschner PA. Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learn Instr. 2001;10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00021-9.
Lyk-Jensen HT, Jepsen RMHG, Spanager L, Dieckmann P, Ostergaard D. Assessing nurse anaesthetists’ non-technical skills in the operating room. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(7):794–801.
Wong A. Review article: teaching, learning, and the pursuit of excellence in anesthesia education. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59(2):171–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-011-9636-x.
Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge M, Glavin R, Maran N, Patey R. Anaesthetists’ non-technical skills (ANTS): Evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(5):580–8.
Flynn FM, Sandaker K, Ballangrud R. Aiming for excellence – A simulation-based study on adapting and testing an instrument for developing non-technical skills in Norwegian student nurse anaesthetists. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017;22:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.11.008.
Flynn FM, Valeberg BT, Tonnessen S, Bing-Jonsson PC. Psychometric Testing of a Structured Assessment Instrument for Non-technical Skills (NANTS-no) for Use in Clinical Supervision of Student Nurse Anesthetists. J Nurs Meas. 2021;29(1):E59–77. https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-D-19-00086.
Sirevåg I, Aamodt KH, Mykkeltveit I, Bentsen SB. Student supervision using the Scrub Practitioners’ List of Intraoperative Non-Technical Skills (SPLINTS-no): A qualitative study. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;97:104686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104686.
Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research : generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Eleventh edition.; International edition. ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2020.
Liamputtong P. Focus group methodology : principles and practice. London: SAGE; 2011.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
Webb C, Kevern J. Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2001;33(6):798–805. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x.
Kitzinger J. The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn. 1994;16(1):103–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023.
Flynn FM, Valeberg BT, Tønnessen S, Bing-Jonsson PC. Psychometric Testing of a Structured Assessment Instrument for Non-technical Skills (NANTS-no) for Use in Clinical Supervision of Student Nurse Anesthetists. J Nurs Meas. 2021;29(1):E59-e77. https://doi.org/10.1891/jnm-d-19-00086.
Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. 4th ed. California: Sage Publications Inc; 2018.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444.
Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002.
Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Lindgren B-M, Lundman B, Graneheim UH. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;108:103632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632.
Lindgren B-M, Lundman B, Graneheim UH. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;108:103632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632.
The Norwegian Centre for Research Data. Notification Form for personal data. 2021. (https://www.nsd.no/en/data-protection-services/notification-form-for-personal-dataRetrieved 16.6.21 from ).
The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (REK). General guidelines for research ethics. 2014. (https://www.forskningsetikk.no/globalassets/dokumenter/4-publikasjoner-som-pdf/general-guidelines.pdfRetrieved 16.6.21 from ).
World Medical Association W. Declaration of Helsinki. 2013. (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ Accessed: 19 Jun 2018).
Karnieli-Miller O, Strier R, Pessach L. Power Relations in Qualitative Research. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(2):279–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308329306.
Smith AF, Greaves JD. Beyond competence: defining and promoting excellence in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(2):184–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06162.x.
Larsson J. Monitoring the anaesthetist in the operating theatre – professional competence and patient safety. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:76–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13743.
Aagaard K, Sorensen EE, Rasmussen BS, Laursen BS. Identifying Nurse Anesthetists’ Professional Identity. J Perianesth Nurs. 2017;32(6):619–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2016.08.006.
Sundqvist AS, Carlsson AA. Holding the patient’s life in my hands: Swedish registered nurse anaesthetists’ perspective of advocacy. Scand J Caring Sci. 2014;28(2):281–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12057.
Schreiber R, Macdonald M. Keeping Vigil over the Patient: a grounded theory of nurse anaesthesia practice. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(3):552–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05207.x.
Flin R, Patey R. Non-technical skills for anaesthetists: developing and applying ANTS. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011;25(2):215–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2011.02.005.
Lincoln YS, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage; 1985.
The Health Research Act, (2008). https://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-lover/data/lov-20080620-044-eng.pdf