Capacity of nurses working in long-term care: A systematic review qualitative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The United Nations calculates there were 703 million adults 65 years and older globally as of 2019 with this number projected to double by 2050. A significant number of older adults live with comorbid health conditions, making the role of a nurse in long-term care (LTC) complex. Our objective was to identify the challenges, facilitators, workload, professional development and clinical environment issues that influence nurses and nursing students to seek work and continue to work in LTC settings. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included being a nurse in a LTC setting and research with a substantial qualitative component. Multiple databases (including Medline and CINAHL) were searched between 2013 and 2019 along with grey literature. Covidence was used to organise a team of 10 into a paired review of titles and abstracts to the final full text screening, extraction and appraisal with the CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist. Analysis involved a thematic synthesis approach. The Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) checklist informed the writing of the review. RESULTS: The search resulted in 18 articles and dissertations. Areas investigated included recruitment, resilience, employment and retention, how nurses perceived their professional work, rewards and difficulties, supervision, student preceptorship and career aspiration, nurses' perceptions of occupational status, along with leadership, education and development needs, and intentions to manage resident deteriorating health. The five themes were (1) perspectives of nursing influenced by the organisation, (2) pride in, and capacity to build relationships, (3) stretching beyond the technical skills, (4) autonomy, and (5) taking on the challenge of societal perceptions. DISCUSSION: This review revealed what is required to recruit nursing students to careers in LTC and retain nurses. To be explored is how staff can work to their full scope of practice and the resultant impact on resident care, including how to maximise a meaningful life for residents and their families. REGISTRATION: National Institute for Health Research UK (Prospero ID: CRD42019125214).

Comparison of Nursing Student and Instructor Preferences for Block and Nonblock Clinical Models.

Clinical experiences are the hallmark of prelicensure nursing programs and assist students with applying nursing theory into practice. The literature is limited with respect to nursing student and instructor preferences for type of clinical model to facilitate student learning. This article explores these perceptions in the nursing programs of 5 universities located in 4 Western Canadian provinces. Findings support the use of both nonblock and block clinical models throughout nursing education programs.

Nursing Student Preference for Block Versus Nonblock Clinical Models.

BACKGROUND: Clinical experiences are essential in undergraduate nursing student education to develop professionalism and integrate theory into practice. However, little evidence is available to guide curricular planners in determining the appropriate and effective use of different clinical models in nursing education. METHOD: Nursing students and four schools of nursing in two western Canadian provinces participated in this descriptive exploratory study examining student preference for clinical models. Thematic analysis of qualitative data addressed two research questions: What type of clinical model is preferred by nursing students? and How does clinical structure influence nursing students' perceived learning? RESULTS: Nonblock clinical practice is preferred by students with respect to a balanced lifestyle, concurrent integration of theory and practice, and critical reflection, whereas the block model is preferred for assimilation, consolidation, and socialization. CONCLUSION: Integration of both clinical models is recommended within undergraduate nursing curricula, as each model can facilitate student learning. [J Nurs Educ. 2017;56(3):152-157.].