ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Clinical placement is recognised as essential for nursing students' development of clinical competence. However, difficulties in providing supportive clinical learning environments are a well-known challenge in nursing education. In Norway, the use of nurse educators in joint university and clinical roles has been recommended as an initiative to strengthen the clinical learning environment and enhance the educational quality. In this study we use the term practice education facilitator in a generic sense for these roles. The aim of this study was to explore how practice education facilitators can contribute to strengthen the clinical learning environments for nursing students. METHODS: This study has a qualitative explorative design with a purposive sample of practice education facilitators affiliated to three different universities located in southeast, mid-, and northern Norway. Individual in-depth interviews with 12 participants were conducted during spring 2021. RESULTS: A thematic analysis resulted in four themes: "coherence between theory and practice"; "student support and guidance during placement"; "supporting the supervisors to support the students" and "factors influencing the practice education facilitators' performance in their role". The participants experienced that the practice education facilitator role contributed to strengthened clinical learning environments. However, their performance in the role was found to be contingent upon factors such as time allocated for the role, personal and professional attributes of the post holder, and a common understanding within the organisations regarding practice learning and role remits for the practice education facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that the practice education facilitator role can be a valuable resource for clinical supervisors and nursing students in clinical placement. Moreover, nurse educators who are familiar with the clinical area, and who are insiders in both settings, are ideally placed to contribute to bridge the theory-practice gap. The benefits of using these roles, however, were influenced by personal attributes of the post holder, time allocated for the role and the number of practice education facilitators positions, and management anchorage. Thus, to achieve the full potential of these roles, efforts to reduce these barriers should be considered.
ABSTRACT
Background: There is little consensus about the relative determinative value of each individual factor in female breast aesthetics. When performing breast surgery with an aesthetic goal, certain factors will be more important than others. The purpose of this study was to make an aesthetic factor rank list to determine the relative contributions to overall breast aesthetics. Method: Volunteers were scanned using the 3-dimensional Vectra system. Ten Scandinavian plastic surgeons rated 37 subjects, using a validated scoring system with 49 scoring items. The correlation between specific aesthetic factors and overall breast aesthetic scores of the subjects were calculated using Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, and Kendall's τ. Results: A very strong correlation was found between overall breast aesthetic score and lower pole shape (0.876, P < 0.0001). This was also true for upper pole shape (0.826, P < 0.0001) and breast height (0.821, P < 0.0001). A strong correlation was found between overall breast aesthetic score and nipple position (0.733, P < 0.0001), breast size (0.644, P < 0.0001), and breast width (0.632, P < 0.0001). Factors that were only moderately correlated with aesthetic score were intermammary distance (0.496, P = 0.002), nipple size and projection (0.588, P < 0.0001), areolar diameter (0.484, P < 0.0001), and areolar shape (0.403, P < 0.0001). Perceived symmetry was a weak factor (0.363, P = 0.027). Conclusions: Aesthetic factors of the female breast can be ranked in a priority list. Shape of the lower pole and upper pole and breast height are primary factors of female breast aesthetics. These should be prioritized in any aesthetic breast surgery. Vertical dimensional factors seem to be more determinative than horizontal factors.
