Nurse Faculty Perceptions of Simulation Use in Nursing Education

McMaster University, USA.
Western Journal of Nursing Research (Impact Factor: 1.03). 02/2009; 31(3):312-29. DOI: 10.1177/0193945908328264
Source: PubMed


In this study nursing faculty perceptions of the implementation of simulation in schools of nursing across Ontario, Canada, were explored using the Q-methodology technique. Following Q-methodology guidelines, 104 statements were collected from faculty and students with exposure to simulation to determine the concourse (what people say about the issue). The statements were classified into six domains, including teaching and learning, access/reach, communication, technical features, technology set-up and training, and comfort/ease of use with technology. They were then refined into 43 final statements for the Q-sample. Next, 28 faculty from 17 nursing schools participated in the Q-sorting process. A by-person factor analysis of the Q-sort was conducted to identify groups of participants with similar viewpoints. Results revealed four major viewpoints held by faculty including: (a) Positive Enthusiasts, (b) Traditionalists, (c) Help Seekers, and (d) Supporters. In conclusion, simulation was perceived to be an important element in nursing education. Overall, there was a belief that clinical simulation requires (a) additional support in terms of the time required to engage in teaching using this modality, (b) additional human resources to support its use, and (c) other types of support such as a repository of clinical simulations to reduce the time from development of a scenario to implementation. Few negative voices were heard. It was evident that with correct support (human resources) and training, many faculty members would embrace clinical simulation because it could support and enhance nursing education.

63 Reads
  • Source
    • "Individual factors such as faculty members' attitudes and perceptions of simulation have been studied [10] [11] [12], but there is a gap in the literature related to how organizational culture shapes and contributes to attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors that impact the adoption and incorporation of simulation into nursing curricula. Akhtar-Danesh and colleagues [9] conducted a q-methodology study in Canada of nursing faculty members' "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. To create a substantive mid-range theory explaining how the organizational cultures of undergraduate nursing programs shape the adoption and incorporation of mid-to high-level technical fidelity simulators as a teaching strategy within curricula. Method. A constructivist grounded theory was used to guide this study which was conducted in Ontario, Canada, during 2011-12. Semistructured interviews (n = 43) with participants that included nursing administrators, nursing faculty, and simulation leaders across multiple programs (n = 13) informed this study. Additionally, key documents (n = 67) were reviewed. Purposeful and theoretical sampling was used and data were collected and analyzed simultaneously. Data were compared among and between sites. Findings. The organizational elements that shape simulation in nursing (OESSN) model depicts five key organizational factors at the nursing program level that shaped the adoption and incorporation of simulation: (1) leaders working in tandem, (2) information exchange, (3) physical locale, (4) shared motivators, and (5) scaffolding to manage change. Conclusions. The OESSN model provides an explanation of the organizational factors that contributed to the adoption and incorporation of simulation into nursing curricula. Nursing programs that use the OESSN model may experience a more rapid or broad uptake of simulation when organizational factors that impact adoption and incorporation are considered and planned for.
    04/2014; 2014:197591. DOI:10.1155/2014/197591
  • Source
    • "This is a significant finding from this study that adds to the literature on simulation. To date, much of the literature about the uptake of simulation into nursing curricula has focused on the attitudes and beliefs of faculty members [21] and the aspects that nursing faculty consider when making decisions about whether to incorporate simulation [22]. This study, on the other hand, suggests that faculty attitudes and beliefs about simulation as a teaching strategy may not be the only consideration which can facilitate or impede the adoption and incorporation of simulation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Implementing simulation requires a substantial commitment of human and financial resources. Despite this, little is known about the strategies used by academic nursing leaders to facilitate the implementation of a simulation program in nursing curricula. Methods. A constructivist grounded theory study was conducted within 13 nursing programs in Ontario, Canada. Perspectives of key stakeholders (n = 27) including nursing administrators (n = 6), simulation leaders (n = 9), and nursing faculty (n = 12) were analyzed using the constant comparison method. Results. Nursing leaders, specifically nursing administrators and simulation leaders who successfully led the adoption and incorporation of simulation into nursing curricula, worked together and utilized negotiating, navigating, and networking strategies that impacted the adoption and incorporation of simulation into nursing curricula. Conclusions. Strategies that were found to be useful when planning and executing the adoption and incorporation of an innovation, specifically simulation, into nursing curricula provide practical approaches that may be helpful to nurse leaders when embarking upon an organizational change.
    04/2014; 2014:854785. DOI:10.1155/2014/854785
  • Source
    • "It is used to identify unique viewpoints, as well as commonly shared views on a research topic and is particularly useful in exploring human perceptions and interpersonal relationships [21]. This methodology has been used in many health-related research areas including the evaluation of job satisfaction of nurses [22], clinical decision making [23], educational program [24], and simulation use in nursing education [25]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although there is a global movement toward health system integration and collaboration, little is known about values, beliefs, and attitudes towards collaboration between stakeholders in public health (i.e. promotion, protection, and prevention with vulnerable groups and/or at the population level) and primary care (i.e., family practices, nurse-led clinics). The purpose of this study was to explore viewpoints of key stakeholders regarding primary care (PC) and public health (PH) collaboration in Canada. We used Q-methodology to identify common viewpoints held by participants who attended a national meeting in Canada in 2010 to discuss PC and PH collaboration. The study was conducted in two phases. In Phase 1 a Q-sample, a Q-sort table, and a short demographic questionnaire were developed which were used in Phase 2 for data collection. The Q-sorts then were analysed to identify the salient factors and consensus statements. In total, 25 multidisciplinary individuals including researchers, policy-makers, directors, managers, and practitioners (e.g., nurses, family physicians, dietitians) participated. Using a by-person factor analysis, three factors (salient viewpoints) emerged. Factors were named based on their distinguishing statements as follows: a) System Driven Collaborators, b) Cautious Collaborators, and c) Competent Isolationists. System Driven Collaborators strongly believed that a clear mandate from the top is needed to enable PH, PC and the rest of the health system to effectively work together and that people in different branches in the Ministry/ Ministries have to strongly believe in collaboration, actively support it, and develop directed policies to foster organizations work together. Cautious Collaborators strongly supported the idea of having better consciousness-raising about what collaborations might be possible and beneficial, and also reflecting on the collaborations already in place. The Competent Isolationists strongly believed that it is necessary for PC and PH sectors to spend time to ensure that both parties clearly understand the differences between their roles. They believe that physicians, nurses, and social workers will not see the value in collaboration because they lack inter-professional educational programs. Different viewpoints are held by stakeholders around PC and PH collaboration which have the potential to influence the success of collaborations. Understanding and managing these differences is important to assist change management processes required to build and maintain strong PC and PH collaborations.
    BMC Health Services Research 08/2013; 13(1):311. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-311 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications