Statement of problem
Clinical placements account for a significant national cost to higher education providers. Deans and Heads of Nursing manage substantial clinical placement budgets and need evidence to guide the use of their limited resources in the most efficient way possible to ensure quality educational experiences for undergraduate nursing students. Currently more than 28 nursing clinical placement models are reported in the contemporary literature. Notably, there is a paucity of robust evidence about the associated costs and cost-effectiveness of these clinical placement models. There is a gap in knowledge regarding the cost-effectiveness of clinical placement models, explicitly concerning the outcome measures of clinical competence and work-readiness of the graduating nurses.
Aims
This presentation reports the findings of phase three of a four phase mixed methods study to determine the most cost-effective method to structure nursing clinical placements to prepare clinically competent, work-ready RN graduates in the Australian context. Methods Following completion of a scoping review and a national survey to explore current clinical placement models in Australia, comparative mixed methods case studies with qualitative and quantitative data gathered from key stakeholders were undertaken (n=3). Qualitative data was collected through focus groups and individual interviews. Quantitative data was gathered using valid and reliable assessment tools: Australian Nursing Standards Assessment Tool (ANSAT)(Ossenberg, Dalton and Henderson, 2016), Short versionNurse Professional Competence (NPC) scale (NPC-S) (Nilsson et al., 2018), Work readiness scale (WRS) (Caballero, Walker, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2011) and the Placement experience tool (PET) Cooper et al., 2020).
Results
The results of the case studies will be presented, including preliminary findings as to which clinical placement model is cost effective in educationally preparing clinically competent, work-ready graduate nurses. 76
Conclusion
This study addresses the ongoing issue of quality clinical placements for undergraduate nursing students by examining their cost effectiveness. The findings aim to mitigate the current health workforce crisis by reducing attrition rates in nursing programs. Additionally, the results will offer valuable insights to guide future policies, funding decisions, and strategies related to clinical placements in nursing.
References:
Caballero, C. L., Walker, A., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2011). The work readiness scale (WRS): developing a measure to assess work readiness in college graduates. Journal of teaching and learning for graduate employability, 2(2), 41-54. https://hdl. handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30036677
Cooper, Cant, R., Waters, D., Luders, E., Henderson, A., Willetts, G., Tower, M., Reid-Searl, K., Ryan, C., & Hood, K. (2020). Measuring the quality of nursing clinical placements and the development of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) in a mixed methods co-design project. BMC Nursing, 19(1), 101-101. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12912-020-00491-1
Nilsson, J., Engstrom, M., Florin, J., Gardulf, A., & Carlsson, M. (2018). A short version of the nurse professional competence scale for measuring nurses’ selfreported competence. Nurse Educ Today, 71, 233-239. https://doi:10.1016/j. nedt.2018.09.028
Ossenberg, C., Dalton, M., & Henderson, A. (2016). Validation of the Australian Nursing Standards Assessment Tool (ANSAT): A pilot study. Nurse Education Today, 36, 23-30. https://doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.07.012