Testing the psychometric properties of two self-report clinical competence scales for nursing students.

Background: It is important to assess the clinical competence of nursing students to gauge their educational needs. Competence can be measured by self-assessment tools; however, Anema and McCoy (2010) contend that currently available measures should be further psychometrically tested.
Aim: To test the psychometric properties of Nursing Competencies Questionnaire (NCQ) and Self-Efficacy in Clinical Performance (SECP) clinical competence scales.
Method: A non-randomly selected sample of n=248 2nd year nursing students completed NCQ, SECP and demographic questionnaires (June and September 2013). Mokken Scaling Analysis (MSA) was used to investigate structural validity and scale properties; convergent and discriminant validity and reliability were also tested for each scale.
Results: MSA analysis identified that the NCQ is a unidimensional scale with strong scale scalability coefficients Hs =0.581; but limited item rankability HT =0.367. The SECP scale MSA suggested that the scale could be potentially split into two unidimensional scales (SECP28 and SECP7), each with good/reasonable scalablity psychometric properties as summed scales but negligible/very limited scale rankability (SECP28: Hs = 0.55, HT=0.211; SECP7: Hs = 0.61, HT=0.049). Analysis of between cohort differences and NCQ/SECP scores produced evidence of discriminant and convergent validity; good internal reliability was also found: NCQ α = 0.93, SECP28 α = 0.96 and SECP7 α=0.89.

Discussion: In line with previous research further evidence of the NCQ’s reliability and validity was demonstrated. However, as the SECP findings are new and the sample small with reference to Straat and colleagues (2014), the SECP results should be interpreted with caution and verified on a second sample.
Conclusions: Measurement of perceived self-competence could start early in a nursing programme to support students’ development of clinical competence. Further testing of the SECP scale with larger nursing student samples from different programme years is indicated.

References:
Anema, M., G and McCoy, JK. (2010) Competency-Based Nursing Education: Guide to Achieving Outstanding Learner Outcomes. New York: Springer.
Straat, JH., van der Ark, LA and Sijtsma, K. (2014) Minimum Sample Size Requirements for Mokken Scale Analysis Educational and Psychological Measurement 74 (5), 809-822.

An Assessment of Psychological Need in Emergency Medical Staff in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust Area

Setting: Psychological stress is increasingly recognised within emergency medicine, given the environmental and clinical stressors associated with the specialism. The current study assessed whether psychological distress is experienced by emergency medical staff and if so, what is the expressed need within this population? Participants: Participants included ambulance personnel, nursing staff, doctors and ancillary support staff within two Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments and twelve ambulance bases within one Trust locality in NI (N = 107). Primary and secondary outcome measures: The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12, Goldberg, 1972, 1978), Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS, Bride, 2004) and an assessment of need questionnaire were completed and explored using mixed method analysis. Results: Results showed elevated levels of psychological distress within each profession except ambulance service clinical support officers (CSOs). Elevated levels of secondary trauma symptomatology were also found; the highest were within some nursing grades and junior doctors. Decreased enjoyment in job over time was significantly associated with higher scores. Analysis of qualitative data identified sources of stress to include low morale. A total of 65% of participants thought that work related stressors had negatively affected their mental health. Participants explored what they felt could decrease psychological distress including improved resources and psychoeducation. Conclusion: There were elevated levels of distress and secondary traumatic stress within this population as well as an expressed level of need, on both systemic and support levels.

Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives

Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives C Morgan, L Adams, J Murray, R Dunlop, IK Walsh. Ian K Walsh, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6DP Background and Purpose: Structured communication tools are used to improve team communication quality.1,2 The Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) tool is widely adopted within patient safety.3 SBAR effectiveness is reportedly equivocal, suggesting use is not sustained beyond initial training.4-6 Understanding perspectives of those using SBAR may further improve clinical communication. We investigated senior medical undergraduate perspectives on SBAR, particularly when communicating with senior colleagues. Methodology: Mixed methods data collection was used. A previously piloted questionnaire with 12 five point Lickert scale questions and 3 open questions was given to all final year medical students. A subgroup also participated in 10 focus groups, deploying strictly structured audio-recorded questions. Selection was by convenience sampling, data gathered by open text questions and comments transcribed verbatim. In-vivo coding (iterative, towards data saturation) preceded thematic analysis. Results: 233 of 255 students (91%) completed the survey. 1. There were clearly contradictory viewpoints on SBAR usage. A recurrent theme was a desire for formal feedback and a relative lack of practice/experience with SBAR. 2. Students reported SBAR as having variable interpretation between individuals; limiting use as a shared mental model. 3. Brief training sessions are insufficient to embed the tool. 4. Most students reported SBAR helping effective communication, especially by providing structure in stressful situations. 5. Only 18.5% of students felt an alternative resource might be needed. Sub analysis of the themes highlighted: A. Lack of clarity regarding what information to include and information placement within the acronym, B. Senior colleague negative response to SBAR C. Lack of conciseness with the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Despite a wide range of contradictory interpretation of SBAR utility, most students wish to retain the resource. More practice opportunities/feedback may enhance user confidence and understanding. References: (1) Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004 Oct;13(Suppl 1):85-90. (2) d'Agincourt-Canning LG, Kissoon N, Singal M, Pitfield AF. Culture, communication and safety: lessons from the airline industry. Indian J Pediatr 2011 Jun;78(6):703-708. (3) Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009 Oct;13(5):384-390. (4) Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 Jun;38(6):261-268. (5) Ludikhuize J, de Jonge E, Goossens A. Measuring adherence among nurses one year after training in applying the Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation instruments. Resuscitation 2011 Nov;82(11):1428-1433. (6) Cunningham NJ, Weiland TJ, van Dijk J, Paddle P, Shilkofski N, Cunningham NY. Telephone referrals by junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of SBAR in a simulated setting. Postgrad Med J 2012 Nov;88(1045):619-626.