1 / 8

Pre-registration Management Review

This review details the progress and outcomes of the 2011-2012 survey on pre-registration management, involving 3rd-year nurse and midwife students, mentors, and charge nurses. Results, feedback, and future developments are highlighted.

williammonroe
Download Presentation

Pre-registration Management Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pre-registration Management Review Survey feedback

  2. The Process • NES first ‘ran’ the survey for the Pre-registration Management process in 2010. • The current survey was revised for 2011 • The survey has been completely redeveloped for 2012 • The above work has been overseen by the survey working group whose membership was drawn from Higher Education Institutions, Practice Education Facilitators, Practice Education Co-ordinator and the NMAHP research and information officer. • The development of next year’s survey has included a rewrite of all survey questions and then a period of piloting with students/mentors and charge nurses. For 2012, the mentor and charge nurse survey will be combined.

  3. The Primary Purpose of the Survey • ‘The purpose of the survey is to gather views of 3rd • year student Nurses and midwives, their mentors and • the charge nurses regarding the educational • environment in practice and the preparedness of • students, on completion of their programme, for their • role as registered practitioners. • The results of the survey are used as part of the • information that informs the annual reviews of • institutions providing pre-registration nursing and • midwifery across Scotland’.

  4. The 2011 Survey Results • Increase in responses • Nurses and Midwives 30.5% • Mentors 137.9% • Charge Nurses 36.5% • The results presented over the next few slides are • across all universities and their board areas.

  5. The 2011 Survey Results (2) • Student survey • 84.1% of students rated positively the value of their education programme in preparing them for practice. • Two thirds of students were generally satisfied with all aspects of clinical practice rating these as good or excellent. • 60.9% of students had received the QSPP and 92.7% found them helpful. • Nearly all students reported having a named mentor (98.0%) • Less satisfactory aspects of placements were perceived to be a lack of support form their HEI(31.2%) access to learning resources (26.7%) and regular feedback from their mentor(14.9%)

  6. The 2011 Survey Results (3) • Mentor Survey • 91.9% reported receiving formal preparation form their HEI to be a • mentor. • 95.4% reported that they had regular mentoring updates. • 93.8% had regular contact with a PEF. • 80.7% rated their capacity to provide supervision for students as good or excellent. • However their were issues with regard to time in terms of preparation, induction and assessment. • They rated the enthusiasm and motivation of the students as good or excellent.

  7. The 2011 Survey Results (4) • Charge Nurse Survey • Most charge nurses were happy with the notice they received prior to the student arrival (68.6% rated this as good or excellent) • 95.2 % reported having a linked PEF. • Charge Nurses rated the enthusiasm (68.6%) and motivation(67.2%) of the students as good or excellent.

  8. Future Developments • Completely re-developed survey for 2012 • Combined mentor and charge nurse survey • More robust analysis of the qualitative comments • Possibility of some kind of trend analysis in the future • More robust ways to increase respondents to be considered • Increased feedback opportunities and links with work to support the undergraduate programmes to be explored.

More Related