The aim of this study was to investigate action learning as an implementation method in a large-scale project with many participants in several autonomous and geographically spread groups. The focus of the implementation was the Model of Practical Skill Performance as a learning and supervision tool in the clinical education of nursing students. Nineteen action learning groups were established, and a total of 129 clinical supervisors and 13 facilitators were involved. To evaluate the implementation process, qualitative data were generated through three focus group interviews, questionnaires, and notes. Data illuminate clinical supervisors’ perceptions of value, impact, and sustainability when they participate in an action learning group to become familiar with the Model of Practical Skill Performance. The deductive data analysis was guided by central concepts from action learning. Action learning proved to be an engaging and effective tool in the implementation where the main strength seemed to be the autonomous local group supporting collective reflections on actions. Clinical supervisors had the right competences to adopt a reflective process-oriented approach, which is the hallmark of action learning. This study shows the necessity of collaboration between stakeholders in practice, education, and management to implement large-scale projects in clinical practice. The findings imply that managers should choose participants on the basis of their motivation and their voluntary wish to participate and that nurses’ immersion in the project over time aids implementation.

Background and PurposeMany newly graduated nurses lack proficiency in practical skill performance. Presently, nursing students’ practical skill is assessed by summative instruments with overarching items. The purpose of this study was to develop a more detailed instrument to use in summative assessment of nursing students’ practical skill performance and to assess its psychometric properties.MethodsA 50-item instrument was developed. Video-recorded performances were rated by experienced clinical supervisors. A multifacet measurement design was developed. Relevant parameters were estimated by generalizability analysis.ResultsFindings indicated that error of measurement were mainly caused by raters far more than by items. Conclusions: The present study suggested that summative assessment in realistic settings may not apply one rater only. Two to three/four raters appear necessary to dependably measure most skills.

No abstract

No abstract