Evaluation of an educational intervention (edworkcases) involving clinical cases and Nursing students: a cross-sectional observational study

Guzmán-Almagro, María Isabel; Oter-Quintana, Cristina; Martín-Salinas, Carmen Clara; Cid-Galán, María Luisa; Carrillo-Camacho, Elena; Navarta-Sánchez, María Victoria; Castedo-Martínez, Oscar; Alcolea-Cosín, María Teresa; Fonseca, Luciana Mara Monti; Parro-Moreno, Ana Isabel

doi:10.1590/1518-8345.6190.3723

Tabla de contenido Anterior Actual Siguiente

Tabla de contenido

Original article • Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem 30 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.6190.3723 linkcopy

Evaluation of an educational intervention (edworkcases) involving clinical cases and Nursing students: a cross-sectional observational study¹

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Objective: to evaluate the impact of the (edworkcases) educational intervention on students’ evaluation outcomes in their clinical practices, their attitudes towards Nursing diagnoses, and their satisfaction.

Method: this study used a cross-sectional observational design. The participants were 69 third-year Nursing students from a public university in Madrid, Spain. The data analysed in the study were the grades obtained by students for their clinical practices, as well as pre-post intervention scores on the Positions on Nursing Diagnosis Scale and a satisfaction survey. A means comparison by participation in the project (yes/no) was carried out using Student’s t-test. A means comparison by professor was conducted using Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Results: participation rate: 72.4%; 92% of the participants were women; median age = 21 years old. Statistically significant differences were found between participants and non-participants in terms of mean score in the Overall Evaluation and in the Case Study Evaluation, with higher scores found among the group of participants. The mean score for attitudes towards Nursing diagnoses was 99.9 (SD=2.8) before the intervention and 111.1 (SD=2.9) after the intervention [95% CI: 3.3-19.2].

Conclusion: the use of (edworkcases) as part of the practical training was considered satisfactory, enabling theory and practice to be combined and improving students’ attitudes towards Nursing diagnoses.

Descriptors:
Clinical Competence; Decision-Making; Problem-Based Learning; Nursing Students; Nursing Diagnosis; Standardized Nursing Terminology

	Mean	SD^*	Participants (yes/no)	Mean	SD^*	Means difference	[95% CI^†)]Lower limit, upper limit		p-value^§
Overall evaluation	8.9	0.4	Yes (n=50)	9.03	0.4	-0.3	-0.5	-0.08	0.007
Overall evaluation	8.9	0.4	No (n=19)	8.7	0.5	-0.3	-0.5	-0.08	0.007
Case study evaluation	8.7	0.9	Yes (n=50) No (n=19)	8.9 8.2	0.7 1	-0.6	-1.1	-0.2	0.009
Self-evaluation	9	0.6	Yes (n=50) No (n=19)	9.1 8.7	0.6 0.7	-0.3	-0.6	-0.02	0.05
Case study evaluation by mentor	Professors		Participants		Median		P25 ^‡	P75 ^‡	p-value^¶
	Professor 1		Yes		9		8.6	9.07	0.001
	Professor 2		Yes		8.6		7.5	9.07
	Professor 3		Yes		9.3		9	9.3
	Professor 4		Yes		8.3		7.7	8.6
	Professor 5		Yes		9.1		8,8	9.3
	Professor 6		Yes		8.8		7.5	8.9
	Professor 7		No		9.1		8.8	9.4
	Professor 8		No		9.5		9	9.8

Items	Means (pre)	Means (post)	Differences	p-value^†	[95% CI*, Lower and upper limit]
1.Ambiguous-Clear	4.7	5.5	0.9	0.01	0.2	1.5
2.Meaningless-Meaningful	5.6	6.2	0.7	0.04	0.2	1
3.Pleasant-Unpleasant	4.7	5.2	0.5	0.07	-0.04	1
4.Strong-Weak	4.3	4.9	0.6	0.04	0.02	1.1
5.Valuable-Worthless	5.4	5.4	0	0.9	-0.7	0.7
6.Negative-Positive	5.9	5.9	0	0.8	-0.4	0.5
7.Stupid-Intelligent	5.7	6.2	0.4	0.02	0.05	0.8
8.Comfortable-Uncomfortable	4.5	5.2	0.8	0.01	0.2	1.4
9.Easy-Difficult	3.9	4.9	0.9	0.03	0.3	1.5
10.Unrealistic-Realistic	4.3	5.1	0.8	0.02	0.2	1.5
11.Helpful-Hindering	5.2	5.5	0.3	0.25	-0.2	0.8
12.Invalid-Valid	5.3	6	0.7	0.00	0.2	1.3
13.Meaningful-Meaningless	5.5	5.6	0.1	0.8	-0.6	0.8
14.Relevant-Irrelevant	5.6	5.7	0.1	0.7	-0.5	0.7
15.Unrewarding-Rewarding	4.9	5.6	0.7	0.00	0.2	1.2
16.Appropriate-Inappropriate	5.5	5.4	-0.1	0.5	-0.8	0.4
17.Acceptable-Unacceptable	5.4	5.7	0.2	0.4	-0.4	0.8
18.Bad-Good	5.8	6	0.1	0.5	-0.2	0.5
19.Creative-Routine	3.9	5	1.2	0.00	0.5	1.9
20.Unimportant-Important	5.8	6.1	0.3	0.18	-0.1	0.7
Overall score	99.9	111.1	11.2	0.00	3.3	19.2
Overall score for part-time professors	101.2	99.4	5.8	0.7	-14.3	10.6
Overall score for full-time professors	101.6	118.8	17.2	0.00	7.8	26.7

Items	Mean^*	Standard deviation
Part 1. Evaluate the methodology used to facilitate completion of the case study
It increased my motivation to complete the case study.	3.74	1.04
It allowed me to apply theory to practice.	4.00	0.97
It met the expectations I had when I received information about the project.	3.51	1.29
It was useful to me when carrying out this task.	3.89	1.02
It allowed me to improve my ability to use Nursing methodology and standardised Nursing languages during the clinical practice.	3.63	1.21
Part 2. Evaluate the methodology used in relation to skills acquisition
Teamwork	3.17	1.12
Communication	3.94	0.97
Autonomous learning	4.23	0.97
Information management	4.03	0.95
Critical thinking	4.26	0.98
Clinical decision-making	4.03	1.04

location_on

Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, 14040-902 Ribeirão Preto SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 (16) 3315-3387 / 3315-4407 - Ribeirão Preto - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rlae@eerp.usp.br

rss_feed Acompañe los números de esta revista en su lector de RSS

[TFN1] *SD = Standard Deviation; ^†CI = Confidence Interval; ^‡P = Percentile; ^§Student’s t-test; ^¶Kruskal-Wallis test

Evaluation of an educational intervention (edworkcases) involving clinical cases and Nursing students: a cross-sectional observational study1

Evaluation of an educational intervention (edworkcases) involving clinical cases and Nursing students: a cross-sectional observational study¹