Case Study Scenarios: Integrating QSEN Competency Responses

1. Case Study Scenarios: Integrating QSEN Competency Responses Presented by: Lori Sprenger, PhD, RN

2. OBJECTIVESThe participant will: 1. Recognize the importance of integrating QSEN competencies into case study (CS) scenarios that may be used in a variety of nursing education settings. 2. Understand the process for implementing CS with QSEN integration into a variety of nursing education settings. 3. Critique the effectiveness of implementing CS with QSEN integration into a variety of nursing education settings.

3. Objective 1: Recognize the importance of integrating QSEN competencies into case study (CS) scenarios that may be used in a variety of nursing education settings. • QSEN Purpose (QSEN Institute, 2005-2014) • Increase patient safety • Increase overall prevalence of quality patient-care outcomes Goals of QSEN intervention strategy is to enable nursing students to… • Understand the importance of QSEN • Feel empowered and confident to apply QSEN competencies to hypothetical and real patient-care situations in both the acute care and community care settings.

4. Objective 2: Implement CS w/QSEN integration into a variety of educational settings • Classroom setting • Whole group discussion • Small group discussion • Oral presentation • Students create their own CS and QSEN integration questions • Online course room setting • Individual or group responses • Initial response to graded discussion area • Peer responses to CS including QSEN responses

7. Objective 2 (continued) • Clinical post-conference • Individual patients (acute care or community setting) • F2F sharing of QSEN integration • Online post conference sharing • Groups of patients in the community setting • F2F sharing of QSEN integration • Online post conference sharing

8. Objective 3: Critique the effectiveness of the intervention • Qualitative response from students • Verbal or written responses to open-ended questions • Students’ overall general opinions about the CS w/ QSEN integration • What students liked best • What students did not like • Ask about students’ levels of confidence with applying QSEN integration into CS scenarios • What could be done to improve the CS w/ QSEN integration strategy • How did the CS w/QSEN competency integration enhance your patient-care skills in the clinical setting?

9. Objective 3 (continued) • Quantitative • Closed ended question with yes or no response • Would you like to try the CS w/ QSEN integration activity on your own another time? • Would you like to try the CS w/ QSEN integration activity as a small group activity another time? • Would you like to try the CS w/ QSEN integration activity as a classroom discussion another time? • Develop a Likert scale questionnaire regarding level of self-confidence (Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989) • 0 = poor level of confidence, 5 = average level of self-confidence, 10 highly self-confident • My level of confidence with completing the CS w/QSEN integration alone is: • My level of confidence with completing the CS w/QSEN integration in a small group is: • My level of confidence with completing the CS w/ QSEN integration in an open discussion classroom setting is: • Develop a Likert scale questionnaire about general overall opinion • 0---did not like, 5---no opinion, 10---liked it a lot • My overall general opinion of the CS w/ QSEN integration is:

10. Evaluation Tool

11. Evaluation tool (continued)

12. Evaluation tool (continued) Open-ended response: How did the case study (CS) with QSEN competency integration affect your patient-care interactions and patient-care outcomes in the clinical setting?

13. Results of Evaluation (N = 39): Qualitative Helpful for participants • Increased critical thinking skills • Increased student confidence • Increased knowledge of pharm concepts • Overall, helpful in general

14. Results of Evaluation (N = 39): Qualitative (continued) Helpful for patient care • Increased patient education • Provided rationale and knowledge for patient care • Increased patient safety • Increased medication safety • Increased understanding of patient’s perspectives • Helped ensure patient’s involvement in care • Increased collaboration • Increased focus on QSEN integration • Increased focus on WPN (Whole Person Nursing) and patient-centered care

15. Results of Evaluation (N = 39): Qualitative (continued) Non-helpful comments • Hard to relate QSEN to patient care due to lack of exposure • Did not apply QSEN to patient care • Did not enjoy doing CS w/QSEN integration • Time consuming to do CS w/QSEN integration • CS w/ QSEN integration were not helpful

16. Results of Evaluation (N = 37): Quantitative • Quantitative—Mean SE • ALONE = 8.9189 • SMALL GROUPS = 9.3514 • CLASS DISCUSSION = 9.5000 --Mean are different, but not statistically different --Results not generalizable to a larger population

17. References QSEN Institute. (2005-2014). Competencies. Retrieved from http://qsen.org/competencies/ Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91–100. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91

18. Thank you! What questions do you have?