Cargando…

Clinical judgment performance of undergraduate Nursing students

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the reported performance regarding clinical judgment by undergraduate Nursing students. METHOD: a cross-sectional study with the application of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric-Brazilian Version in 166 undergraduate Nursing students from a Brazilian public university. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: do Canto, Vanessa Brito, da Silva, Tatianne Gonçalves, dos Santos, Gutembergue Aragão, de Carvalho, Emilia Campos, Morais, Sheila Coelho Ramalho Vasconcelos, Frazão, Cecília Maria Farias de Queiroz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253357/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34190943
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.4843.3452
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the reported performance regarding clinical judgment by undergraduate Nursing students. METHOD: a cross-sectional study with the application of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric-Brazilian Version in 166 undergraduate Nursing students from a Brazilian public university. The data were analyzed descriptively and analytically (by comparing the level of clinical judgment among students from the initial, intermediate, and concluding groups). The following tests were applied: Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact and Kruskal-Wallis, and a p-value of 0.05 was adopted. The reliability of the global instrument (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.786. RESULTS: of the 166 students, 65.7% evaluated themselves as proficient in relation to the reported performance on clinical judgment. Of the rubric’s 11 dimensions (focused observation, recognizing deviations from expected patterns, information seeking, prioritizing data, making sense of data, calm and confident manner, clear communication, well-planned intervention/flexibility, being skillful, evaluation/self-analysis, and commitment to improvement), only four groups did not present significant differences among them (p<0.05): focused observation, information seeking, prioritizing data, and calm and confident manner. CONCLUSION: the performance on clinical judgment reported as proficient was pointed out by 65.7% of the students and a significant statistical difference was verified in seven dimensions, among beginners, intermediate, and concluding students, compatible with the evolution of learning.