Title |
An evaluation of methods used to teach quality improvement to undergraduate healthcare students to inform curriculum development within preregistration nurse education: a protocol for systematic review and narrative synthesis
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-4-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lorraine Armstrong, William Lauder, Ashley Shepherd |
Abstract |
Despite criticism, quality improvement (QI) continues to drive political and educational priorities within health care. Until recently, QI educational interventions have varied, targeting mainly postgraduates, middle management and the medical profession. However, there is now consensus within the UK, USA and beyond to integrate QI explicitly into nurse education, and faculties may require redesign of their QI curriculum to achieve this. Whilst growth in QI preregistration nurse education is emerging, little empirical evidence exists to determine such effects. Furthermore, previous healthcare studies evaluating QI educational interventions lend little in the way of support and have instead been subject to criticism. They reveal methodological weakness such as no reporting of theoretical underpinnings, insufficient intervention description, poor evaluation methods, little clinical or patient impact and lack of sustainability. This study aims therefore to identify, evaluate and synthesise teaching methods used within the undergraduate population to aid development of QI curriculum within preregistration nurse education. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 9 | 64% |
Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 43% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 29% |
Scientists | 4 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 2 | 2% |
Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 118 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 17 | 14% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
Researcher | 10 | 8% |
Other | 28 | 23% |
Unknown | 27 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 27% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 19% |
Psychology | 8 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 5% |
Other | 18 | 15% |
Unknown | 26 | 21% |