Failure to fail - Factors affecting faculty decisions to pass underperforming nursing students in the clinical setting: A quantitative study.

AIM: The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between face-implicating factors and faculty's likelihood of failing students in the clinical setting who do not meet passing criteria. BACKGROUND: Clinical nursing faculty members struggle to assign failing grades to underperforming students in the clinical setting; this is known as failure to fail. Qualitative literature has revealed common factors for failure to fail; however, quantitative studies are required to determine the extent to which those factors affect faculty's decision-making process. DESIGN: A quantitative, descriptive design was used. METHODS: Snowball sampling was used to recruit participants from CCNE- and ACEN-accredited nursing programs to complete an online survey. There were 353 responses to the survey (a 30% return rate) and 327 usable responses. Eligibility criteria included pre-licensure nursing faculty members who had taught in the clinical setting within the past three years. The tool used for the study was adapted from Dibble's (2014) tool, which explored face-implicating factors' impact on the transmission of bad news. RESULTS: Respondents who did not commit failure to fail (F2FN) disagreed more strongly with every survey item than those who committed failure to fail (F2FY). The differences in mean scores were compared and 64% of those differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Respondents who did not commit failure to fail were less affected by the face-implicating factors than those who committed failure to fail. CONCLUSIONS: the null hypothesis was rejected; a direct connection was found between face-implicating factors and faculty's likelihood of passing students in the clinical setting who do not meet passing criteria.

Participation in continuing nursing education programs by staff development specialists.

Staff development specialists were surveyed regarding their reasons for participation in continuing nursing education programs. Hospital-based staff development specialists (n = 279) from American Hospital Association member facilities responded to the Participation Reasons Scale (PRS). Using a Likert scale 1 to 7 rating, mean scores ranged from 3.52 to 6.40. There were significant differences in the responses of certified and noncertified staff development specialists for four items. Those with a mandatory requirement for continuing education responded differently from those without the requirement. Findings can help continuing education professionals make decisions about programming.