The Power of Synergy: An Academic/Clinical Partnership for Transformational Change

Abstract

Background. A programme of postgraduate study was developed in partnership between a health board and a university in New Zealand, having identified critical thinking and practice change as key determinants of good care delivery. Aim. To explore the impact after 12 months of a postgraduate programme for registered nurses on patient assessment and clinical reasoning, and the status of implementation plans for improved patient care. Design. Outcome evaluation using a survey and focus groups. Setting. On location at a hospital in a small city in New Zealand that provides healthcare services for 102,000 people across rural and urban areas. Participants. Registered nurses who had completed the programme (N = 28) and seven clinical mentors. Methods. A survey, focus groups, and follow-up data about quality improvement projects were used to explore how the programme was experienced and its impact. Results. The survey revealed perceptions of improved knowledge and skills but a lack of confidence in communicating with medical staff. Of 28 quality improvement projects planned, all but three had been implemented and were still in use. Two themes were generated from focus group data: "new ways of thinking" and "doing things differently. " Conclusions. This academic/clinical partnership positively influenced nurses' knowledge and skills, encouraged critical thinking and self-efficacy, and resulted in the sustained implementation of nurse-initiated projects intended to improve patient care.

Reaching their potential: Perceived impact of a collaborative academic–clinical partnership programme for early career nurses in New Zealand

“…Therefore, careful monitoring of workload, and individualised learning support is vital. The model of delivery with formal university teaching and clinical preceptorship in practice settings is not new but its positive impact on systematic patient assessment, clinical reasoning and care decisions reinforces the value of clinical-academic partnerships in education found elsewhere (McKillop, Atherfold, & Lees, 2014). In contrast to studies that have reported new graduates' reluctance to communicate with other health professionals (Dyess & Sherman, 2009;Fink, Krugman, Casey, & Goode, 2008), participants in this study indicated that towards the end of the programme they were confident and articulate with medical and nursing colleagues regarding patient status and safety.…”

Identification of histological threshold concepts in health sciences curricula: Students' perception

“…One such theory, the Threshold Concepts learning framework, aims to identify the concepts most relevant for learning in a given discipline. Currently, newer studies have attempted to identify TC in a wide variety of disciplines such as nursing (McKillop et al, 2014 ), palliative medicine (O’Callaghan et al, 2020 ), economics (Randall et al, 2018 ), or physics (Serbanescu, 2017 ), among others.…”

“…However, the identification of TC in health sciences currently constitutes a major challenge for higher education, because of the lack of a standardized, validated method for this purpose (Santisteban‐Espejo et al, 2020 ). Although TC have initially been identified by professors and staff scholars (Davies & Mangan, 2007 ; McKillop et al, 2014 ) students' perception may also play a key role in their identification, and students' perceptions are now increasingly used in the scientific community to identify TC (Clouder, 2005 ; Loertscher et al, 2014 ; Park, 2014 ). In this connection, several authors have attempted to identify TC by investigating the perceptions of medical students after conducting clinical practice in palliative care (O’Callaghan et al, 2020 ) and pediatrics (Randall et al, 2018 ).…”

The challenge of discovering the threshold concepts of medical research areas: A bibliometrics-based approach

“…There have been described several methodological strategies with the purpose to identify TC. First attempts consisted of a fluid framework based on asking scholars to identify themselves TC in their subjects [28] or the discussion between partners [29]. These scholar-based approaches present some limitations.…”