Student Nurse Experiences of Learning from Clinical Practice and Simulations in New Zealand: A Descriptive Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In New Zealand, finding quality learning opportunities in the clinical setting is often challenging. In response, using simulation as an alternate learning environment has been proposed. Literature related to the substitution of clinical experience with simulation is relatively sparse and, in New Zealand, non-existent. PURPOSE: This study sought to answer the foundational issue of how students experience learning in the simulation and clinical environment. The research question was: 'how do nursing students in New Zealand experience simulation and clinical practice as an environment for learning?' METHODS: This research used a descriptive qualitative design based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with twelve nursing students and written reflective stories from students' clinical practice. FINDINGS: Students' experiences in the two learning environments were different. These differences were associated with relational care, predictability, responsibility and managing critical incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Each environment offered nursing students valuable, yet unique learning opportunities. The key to educating nursing students is ensuring that both simulations and clinical practice are appropriately placed in the nursing curriculum while recognising their strengths and weaknesses.

Building the research capacity of clinical physical therapists using a participatory action research approach.

BACKGROUND: This 2-year study explored the experiences of clinical physical therapists who used a participatory action research (PAR) approach to learn about the practice of clinical research. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of physical therapists who were conducting clinical research, facilitated by a PAR approach. DESIGN: A mixed-methods research design was used. METHODS: Physical therapists completed questionnaires, were interviewed, and participated in focus groups prior to and after the 1-year intervention and 1 year later. The research facilitator took field notes. Questionnaire data were analyzed descriptively, and themes were developed from the qualitative data. Twenty-five therapists took part in 4 self-selected groups. RESULTS: Three groups actively participated in the PAR research projects (n=14). The remaining 11 therapists decided not to be involved in clinical research projects but took part in the study as participants. After 1 year, one group completed the data collection phase of their research project, and a second group completed their ethics application. The third group ceased their research project but hosted a journal club session. At completion of the study, the experiences of the physical therapists were positive, and their confidence in conducting research and orientation toward research had increased. The perceptions of physical therapists toward research, relationships among individuals, and how the clinical projects were structured influenced the success of the projects. LIMITATIONS: Only physical therapists of one hospital and no other health care practitioners were included in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen physical therapists divided among 3 PAR groups were overall positive about their experiences when they conducted a research project together. This finding shows that a PAR approach can be used as a novel tool to stimulate research participation in clinics.