Differences in Supervision on Peer Learning Wards: A Pilot Survey of the Supervisor's Perspective.

Introduction: Multiple students are placed on clinical wards simultaneously due to increasing student numbers. This has the potential to create stress for the supervisor and reduce quality of student learning. Peer learning as a pedagogical framework to supervise multiple students has been widely shown to have advantages for the students by developing teaching skills, team collaboration, and independence. However, whether peer learning impacts the characteristics of supervision and the experience of the supervisor is less understood. It is unknown whether wards that use peer learning as a pedagogical framework (peer learning wards) are any different compared to wards that do not (non-peer learning wards), from the supervisor's perspective. Methods: We aimed to develop and pilot test a questionnaire to compare peer-learning wards and non-peer learning wards from the supervisor's perspective. We used the AMEE 7-step guide to develop questions investigating supervision, the learning environment and satisfaction. We piloted the questionnaire with 46 nurse supervisors working on inpatient hospital wards in Stockholm, Sweden. We compared answers from peer learning with non-peer learning wards. We used Orthogonal Projections to Latent Structures (OPLS) discriminant analysis to show what differed between the wards. Results: Peer learning wards compared to non-peer learning wards had more student-centred activities, the physical space had more adaptations for students, more support available to the supervisor, and supervisors perceived greater overall satisfaction with the quality of education and with the ward as a whole. The variables that had most influence on the discrimination between the two ward types related to peer learning activities and perceptions (p=0.0034). Conclusion: This pilot study shows that peer learning wards differ compared to non-peer learning wards regarding peer learning activities and perceptions among supervisors. Our questionnaire needs to be distributed on a larger scale to validate our findings and explore further the way in which the pedagogical framework and peer learning can affect supervision and satisfaction.

What about the supervisor? Clinical supervisors' role in student nurses' peer learning: A phenomenographic study.

INTRODUCTION: Peer learning is increasingly used for healthcare students in the clinical setting. However, as peer learning between students involves students taking a teaching role, it is unclear what the supervisor's role then becomes. It is vital to determine the role of the supervisor in student peer learning to ensure high quality learning and patient safety. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with 15 student nurse supervisors (nurses and assistant nurses) from two hospital wards that practice peer learning to investigate the different ways clinical supervisors view their role in students' peer learning. Transcribed data were coded and analysed using a phenomenographic approach. RESULTS: Four hierarchical levels of the supervisor's understanding of their role in students' peer learning were identified: the teacher; the facilitator; the stimulator; and the team player. These categories represent an increasingly inclusive view of which people present on the ward play a role in enabling effective peer learning. CONCLUSIONS: The various understandings of supervisor roles have implications for how supervision of peer learning could be implemented in the future.

The learning environment on a student ward: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, a growing number of healthcare students require clinical environments for learning. Some wards have become adapted 'student wards' to meet this demand. Benefits have been reported from the students', supervisors' and patients' perspectives. There is no definition of a student ward, and little research on what the term means. A deeper understanding of the characteristics of student wards is needed to support their use. The aim of this study is to describe what characterises the learning environment on one student ward. METHODS: An ethnographic approach was used for an observational study on a student ward in a hospital in Sweden. Student nurses, supervisors and others on the ward were observed. Field notes were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: 'Student-led learning' described students learning by actively performing clinical tasks and taking responsibility for patients and for their own learning. 'Learning together' described peer learning and supervision. 'Staff's approach to learning' described personalised relationships between the students and staff and the build-up of trust, the unified inter-professional approach to teaching, and the supervisors' motivation for teaching and for their own learning. 'Student-dedicated space' described the effect of the student room on the learning environment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the characteristics of a student ward that centred around a community of practice that shared a view of learning as a priority, allowing staff to provide clinical care without compromising students' learning. This qualitative study at a single centre lays the groundwork for future research into other student wards.