A systematic review of mentoring nursing students in clinical practice

Department of Nursing Science, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Journal of Clinical Nursing (Impact Factor: 1.26). 03/2011; 20(19-20):2854-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03571.x
Source: PubMed


This systematic review describes mentoring of nursing students in clinical placements.
Mentoring in nursing has been widely investigated, but mentoring among students has remained vague. There is no universal agreement on student mentoring in nursing placements; therefore, mentoring approaches vary. A unified description of student mentoring is needed to ensure the quality of placement learning in nursing organisations.
Systematic review.
The data were collected from nursing research articles over 20 years (1986-2006). The articles (n = 23) were analysed using inductive content analysis.
Mentoring of nursing students in clinical placements was described according to two themes: (1) facilitating nursing students' learning by creating supportive learning environments and enabling students' individual learning processes, (2) strengthening students' professionalism by empowering the development of their professional attributes and identities and enhancing attainment of students' professional competence in nursing.
This description of student mentoring in nursing clinical placements integrates environmental, collegial, pedagogical and clinical attributes. To ensure effective student mentoring, an individual mutual relationship is important, but also essential is organisation and management to provide adequate resources and systematic preparation for mentors.
The description of student mentoring needs to be systematically reviewed to reflect changes in nursing and education and compared within related concepts to achieve and maintain a workable description. A clear and systematic strategy for student mentoring in nursing organisations could be one opportunity to enhance recruitment of nursing students to the workforce.
A unified description of student mentoring will help improve the quality of placement learning opportunities and support for students, also for exchange students. A clear description of student mentoring enables the development of systematic provisions for mentoring of nursing students in placements and adequate mentor preparation programmes for nurses.

    • "For example, Yanhua and Watson (2011) investigated trends in the evaluation of clinical competence in student nurses such as instrument development and approaches to testing competence. Mentoring or student– mentor relationship has also been of interest in reviews (e.g., Henderson et al., 2012; Jokelainen et al., 2011; Wilkes, 2006). Chambers (1998) and Priest and Roberts (1998) have published reviews of the literature focusing on assessment of student nurses' clinical assessment. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To provide an overview of summative assessment of student nurses' practice currently in use. Design: Narrative review and synthesis of qualitative and quantitative studies. Data sources: With the support of an information specialist, the data were collected from scientific databases which included CINAHL, PubMed, Medic, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane library and ERIC published from January 2000 to May 2014. Sources used in all of the included studies were also reviewed. Review methods: 725 articles concerned with student nurse clinical practice assessment were identified. After inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 articles were selected for critical review. Results: Findings suggest that the assessment process of student nurses' clinical practice lacks consistency. It is open to the subjective bias of the assessor, and the quality of assessment varies greatly. Student nurses' clinical assessment was divided into 3 themes: acts performed before final assessment, the actual final assessment situation and the acts after the final assessment situation. Mentors and students need teachers to provide them with an orientation to the assessment process and the paperwork. Terminology on evaluation forms is sometimes so difficult to grasp that the mentors did not understand what they mean. There is no consensus about written assignments' ability to describe the students' skills. Mentors have timing problems to ensure relevant assessment of student nurses. At the final interview students normally self-assess their performance; the mentor assesses by interview and by written assignments whether the student has achieved the criteria, and the role of the teacher is to support the mentor and the student in appropriate assessment. The variety of patient treatment environments in which student nurses perform their clinical practice periods is challenging also for the assessment of student nurses' expertise. Conclusions: Mentors want clinical practice to be a positive experience for student nurses and it might lead mentors to give higher grades than what student nurses in fact deserve. It is very rare that student nurses fail their clinical practice. If the student nurse does not achieve the clinical competencies they are allowed to have extra time in clinical areas until they will be assessed as competent. Further research needs to be carried out to have more knowledge about the final assessment in the end of clinical practice. Through further research it will be possible to have better methods for high quality assessment processes and feedback to student nurses. Quality in assessment improves patient safety.
    International journal of nursing studies 11/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.09.014 · 2.90 Impact Factor
    • "A spectrum of differing models and definitions of student supervision has evolved with a variety of terms used, sometimes interchangeably, including 'supervising', 'mentoring', 'facilitating' and 'preceptoring'. As examples, mentoring utilizes clinically based nurses—the nurse mentor, with student supervision part of the nurse's standard role (Jokelainen et al., 2011). Alternatively in the clinical facilitator models, registered nurses (RNs) are employed by the higher education institution (HEI) to supervise students, typically in a 1:8 ratio and over several wards (Courtney-Pratt et al., 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approaches to clinical education are highly diverse and becoming increasingly complex to sustain in complex milieu OBJECTIVE: To identify the influences and challenges of providing nurse clinical education in the undergraduate setting and to illustrate emerging solutions. A discursive exploration into the broad and varied body of evidence including peer reviewed and grey literature. Internationally, enabling undergraduate clinical learning opportunities faces a range of challenges. These can be illustrated under two broad themes: (1) legacies from the past and the inherent features of nurse education and (2) challenges of the present, including, population changes, workforce changes, and the disconnection between the health and education sectors. Responses to these challenges are triggering the emergence of novel approaches, such as collaborative models. Ongoing challenges in providing accessible, effective and quality clinical learning experiences are apparent. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Nurse education today 07/2015; 35(11). DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.07.006 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Bailey and Tuohy (2009) emphasize that, for the learning process to be successful, students need support from teachers, relevant skills, prior experimental learning and required theoretical knowledge, among other things. From a systematic review, Jokelainen et al. (2011a) sought a unified description of student mentoring. Their review identified characteristics of clinical mentoring such as creating a supporting learning environment , enabling students' individual learning processes, strengthening students' professionalism, helping them develop their professional identities and improving nursing students' professional competence. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Providing adequate training for mentors, fostering a positive mentorship culture and establishing the necessary operational procedures for ensuring mentorship quality are the keys to effective clinical mentoring of nursing students. The purpose of the research was to explain different dimensions of clinical mentors' professional development and their capability of developing ethical values in nursing students. A non-experimental quantitative research design was employed. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire administered to the population of clinical mentors (N=143). The total number of questions was 36. Descriptive statistics were used, and bivariate analysis, factor analysis, correlation analysis and linear regression analysis were performed. The professional development of clinical nurse mentors was explained (R(2)=0.256) by career advancement (p=0.000), research and learning (p=0.024) and having a career development plan (p=0.043). Increased professional self-confidence (R(2)=0.188) was explained by career advancement (p=0.000) and the time engaged in record keeping (p=0.028). Responsibility for the development of ethical values in nursing students (R(2)=0.145) was explained by the respondents' level of education (p=0.020) and research and learning (p=0.024). Applying ethical principles and norms into practice (R(2)=0.212) was explained by self-assessed knowledge in ethics (p=0.037) and research and learning (p=0.044). Clinical nurse mentors tended to lack a career development plan, had low work time spent on research and insufficiently participated in education and training activities, which turned out to be significant explanatory factors of their professional development and their capability of developing ethical values in nursing students. The research showed that nursing and higher education managers often failed to assume responsibility for the professional development of clinical nurse mentors. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Nurse Education Today 04/2015; 35(10). DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.04.003 · 1.36 Impact Factor
Show more