To promote workplace learning for staff as well as students, a partnership was formed between a residential care organisation for older people and several nursing faculties in the Netherlands. This partnership took the form of two care innovation units; wards where qualified staff, students and nurse teachers collaborate to integrate care, education, innovation and research. In this article, the care innovation units as learning environments are studied from a student perspective to deepen understandings concerning the conditions that facilitate learning. A secondary analysis of focus groups, held with 216 nursing students over a period of five years, revealed that students are satisfied about the units' learning potential, which is formed by various interrelated and self-reinforcing affordances: co-constructive learning and working, challenging situations and activities, being given responsibility and independence, and supportive and recognisable learning structures. Time constraints had a negative impact on the units' learning potential. It is concluded that the learning potential of the care innovation units was enhanced by realising certain conditions, like learning structures and activities. The learning potential was also influenced, however, by the non-controllable and dynamic interaction of various elements within the context. Suggestions for practice and further research are offered.
LINK
Background: On two Care Innovation Units in the Netherlands, staff, students and Lecturer Practitioners work intensively together to provide care, create a rich learning environment, and to foster innovation and research. In striving to advance the quality of care and to develop person centred cultures a preference is given to participative forms of research in which diverse experiences and different types of knowledge are valued. Aims and Objectives: The research described here had two overarching aims: the improvement of practice situations and the encouragement of the integration of work and learning. This article focuses on our actions and learning with respect to fostering participation during this project. Design and methods: Within the action research methodology used, participative work-forms and research methods were chosen. For example, a responsive approach to evaluation of practice, use of narratives and the stimulation and use of creativity to help in exploring and sharing feelings, values and different forms of knowledge. In this article we use Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation to frame our reflection on enabling participation within this project. Results Participation took various forms and vacillated throughout the project. In addition to particular facilitation strategies, four factors emerged as influential in enabling or inhibiting aspects of participation among stakeholders: individual motivations and interests, the make-up of and atmosphere within the group, and the time made available to engage in research activities. Conclusions Participation in research is both more complex and dynamic than Arnstein's typology suggests. Moving 'up' the ladder may not be appropriate as a goal in and of itself. Instead, meeting and responding to each other's situations, as stakeholders, seems a more appropriate focus. Taking responsibility, as facilitator, for certain research activities, can free other participants to focus on elements which interest them and from which they derive satisfaction.
LINK
A B S T R A C T Background: Approximately 4 years ago a new concept of learning in practice called the ‘Learning and Innovation Network (LIN)’ was introduced in The Netherlands. To develop a definition of the LIN, to identify working elements of the LIN in order to provide a preliminary framework for evaluation, a concept analysis was conducted. Method: For the concept analysis, we adopted the method of Walker and Avant. We searched for relevant publications in the EBSCO host portal, grey literature and snowball searches, as well as Google internet searches and dictionary consults. Results: Compared to other forms of workplace learning, the LIN is in the centre of the research, education and practice triangle. The most important attributes of the LIN are social learning, innovation, daily practice, reflection and co-production. Often described antecedents are societal developments, such as increasing complexity of work, and time and space to learn. Frequently identified consequences are an attractive workplace, advancements of expertise of care professionals, innovations that endorse daily practice, improvement of quality of care and the integration of education and practice. Conclusions: Based on the results of the concept analysis, we describe the LIN as ‘a group of care professionals, students and an education representatives who come together in clinical practice and are all part of a learning and innovation community in nursing. They work together on practice-based projects in which they combine best practices, research evidence and client perspectives in order to innovate and improve quality of care and in which an integration of education, research and practice takes place’. We transferred the outcomes of the concept analysis to an input-throughput-output model that can be used as a preliminary framework for future research.
DOCUMENT
