Background: Despite increasing shortages of highly educated community nurses, far too few nursing students choose community care. This means that a strong societal problem is emerging that desperately needs resolution.Objectives: To acquire a solid understanding of the causes for the low popularity of community care by exploring first-year baccalaureate nursing students' perceptions of community care, their placement preferences, and theassumptions underlying these preferences.Design: A quantitative cross-sectional design.Settings: Six universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands.Participants: Nursing students in the first semester of their 4-year programme (n =1058).Methods: Data were collected in September–December 2014. The students completed the ‘Scale on Community Care Perceptions’ (SCOPE), consisting of demographic data and three subscales measuring the affective componentof community care perception, perceptions of a placement and a profession in community care, and students' current placement preferences. Descriptive statistics were used.Results: For a practice placement, 71.2% of first-year students prefer the general hospital and 5.4% community care, whereas 23.4% opt for another healthcare area. Students consider opportunities for advancement and enjoyable relationships with patients as most important for choosing a placement. Community care is perceived as a ‘low-status-field’ with many elderly patients, where students expect to find little variety in caregiving and few opportunities for advancement. Students' perceptions of the field are at odds with things they believe to be important for their placement.Conclusion: Due to misconceptions, students perceive community care as offering them few challenges. Strategies to positively influence students' perceptions of community nursing are urgently required to halt thedissonance between students' preference for the hospital and society's need for highly educated community nurses.
Background: The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients’ informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. Methods/design: This paper concerns a preimplementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid.
Background: Patient involvement in interprofessional education (IPE) is a new approach in fostering person-centeredness and collaborative competencies in undergraduate students. We developed the Patient As a Person (PAP-)module to facilitate students in learning from experts by experience (EBEs) living with chronic conditions, in an interprofessional setting. This study aimed to explore the experiences of undergraduate students, EBEs and facilitators with the PAP-module and formulate recommendations on the design and organization of patient involvement in IPE. Methods: We collected data from students, EBEs and facilitators, through eight semi-structured focus group interviews and two individual interviews (N = 51). The interviews took place at Maastricht University, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Regional Training Center Leeuwenborgh. Conventional content analysis revealed key themes. Results: Students reported that learning from EBEs in an interprofessional setting yielded a more comprehensive approach and made them empathize with EBEs. Facilitators found it challenging to address multiple demands from students from different backgrounds and diverse EBEs. EBEs were motivated to improve the personcentredness of health care and welcomed a renewed sense of purpose. Conclusions: This study yielded six recommendations: (a) students from various disciplines visit an EBE to foster a comprehensive approach, (b) groups of at least two students visit EBEs, (c) students may need aftercare for which facilitators should be receptive, (d) EBEs need clear instruction on their roles, (e) multiple EBEs in one session create diversity in perspectives and (f) training programmes and peer-to-peer sessions for facilitators help them to interact with diverse students and EBEs.
