To explore health disparity in on-campus undergraduate nurse education through the analysis of teaching and teaching material exploring pressure injuries.
As a discipline, nursing espouses ideologies of inclusion, equity and valuing diversity. However, little is known about how these ideologies translate into clinical care. Pressure injury prevention is a routine aspect of nursing care; yet, there is evidence of inequity in relation to clinical care and patient assessment, as people with darker skin tones have a higher prevalence of severe pressure injuries before detection of damage occurs. Despite limited literature being available surrounding the topic of pressure injuries and skin tone diversity, it remains the responsibility of nurse educators to address contemporary issues and health disparity within the nursing curriculum.
A multiple method collective case study. The STROBE checklist was followed in reporting this study.
Documentary and observational data of lectures regarding pressure injuries were collected during 2017 and 2018 from five Higher Education Institutes in England delivering approved nursing undergraduate programmes.
Documentary analysis confirmed all Higher Education Institutes overwhelmingly directed teaching and learning activities about pressure injury towards people with Caucasian skin tones. Observation of teaching indicated all teaching sessions only contained brief, separate and superficial information on people with pressure injuries and darker skin tones. There was no discursive language or awareness of colour or colour blindness.
Radical critique of all teaching and learning activities needs to occur, to help explore, improve and meaningfully and authentically include diversity and inclusivity in nurse education, and in particular, how people across the skin tone spectrum are included and represented in teaching and learning activities.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,358,061
of 30,034,949 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#194
of 6,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,165
of 437,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#6
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,034,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
