The overall aim of the study was to develop a composite and comparative view of what factors enhance the learning experiences of student nurses whilst they are in clinical practice. The study involved students undertaking general nurse training programmes in nine Western European countries. The study focused on: (1) student nurse experiences of clinical learning environments, (2) the supervision provided by qualified nurses in clinical placements, and (3) the level of interaction between student and nurse teachers. The study utilised a validated theoretical model: the Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision and Nurse Teacher (CLES + T) evaluation scale. The evaluation scale has a number of sub-dimensions: Pedagogical atmosphere on the ward; Supervisory Relationships; the Leadership Style of Ward Managers; Premises of Nursing; and the Role of the Nurse Teacher. Data (N = 1903) was collected from Cyprus, Belgium, England, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden using web-based questionnaire [2007][2008]. The findings revealed that respondents were generally satisfied with their clinical placements. There was clear support for the mentorship approach; 57% of respondents had a successful mentorship experience although some 18% of respondents experienced unsuccessful supervision. The most satisfied students studied at a university college, and had at least a seven week clinical placement supported by individualised mentorship relationships. Learning to become a nurse is a multidimensional process that requires both significant time being spent working with patients and a supportive supervisory relationship.
This study identifies the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia as the most important factor associated with fear of hypoglycaemia. Moreover, for the first time, we document gender differences in fear of hypoglycaemia, suggesting that females are more affected by fear of hypoglycaemia than men.
Aim
To describe diabetes nurses' perspectives on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on people with diabetes and diabetes services across Europe.
Methods
An online survey developed using a rapid Delphi method. The survey was translated into 17 different languages and disseminated electronically in 27 countries via national diabetes nurse networks.
Results
Survey responses from 1829 diabetes nurses were included in the analysis. The responses indicated that 28% (n = 504) and 48% (n = 873) of diabetes nurses felt the COVID‐19 pandemic had impacted ‘a lot’ on the physical and psychological risks of people with diabetes, respectively. The following clinical problems were identified as having increased ‘a lot’: anxiety 82% (n = 1486); diabetes distress 65% (n = 1189); depression 49% (n = 893); acute hyperglycaemia 39% (n = 710) and foot complications 18% (n = 323). Forty‐seven percent (n = 771) of respondents identified that the level of care provided to people with diabetes had declined either extremely or quite severely. Self‐management support, diabetes education and psychological support were rated by diabetes nurse respondents as having declined extremely or quite severely during the COVID‐19 pandemic by 31% (n = 499), 63% (n = 1,027) and 34% (n = 551), respectively.
Conclusion
The findings show that diabetes nurses across Europe have seen significant increases in both physical and psychological problems in their patient populations during COVID‐19. The data also show that clinical diabetes services have been significantly disrupted. As the COVID‐19 situation continues, we need to adapt care systems with some urgency to minimise the impact of the pandemic on the diabetes population.
The Swedish version of Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision and Nurse Teacher evaluation scale has satisfactory psychometric properties and could be a useful quality instrument in nursing education. However, further investigation is required to develop and evaluate the questionnaire.
ObjectivesThere is a growing emphasis on the perspective of individuals living with diabetes and the need for a more person-centred diabetes care. At present, the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) lacks patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on the perspective of the patient. As a basis for a new PROM, the aim of this study was to describe important aspects in life for adult individuals with diabetes.DesignSemistructured qualitative interviews analysed using content analysis.SettingHospital-based outpatient clinics and primary healthcare clinics in Sweden.Participants29 adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) (n=15) and type 2 DM (n=14). Inclusion criteria: Swedish adults (≥18 years) living with type 1 DM or type 2 DM (duration ≥5 years) able to describe their situation in Swedish. Purposive sampling generated heterogeneous characteristics.ResultsTo live a good life with diabetes is demanding for the individual, but experienced barriers can be eased by support from others in the personal sphere, and by professional support from diabetes care. Diabetes care was a crucial resource to nurture the individual's ability and knowledge to manage diabetes, and to facilitate life with diabetes by supplying support, guidance, medical treatment and technical devices tailored to individual needs. The analysis resulted in the overarching theme ‘To live a good life with diabetes’ constituting the two main categories ‘How I feel and how things are going with my diabetes’ and ‘Support from diabetes care in managing diabetes’ including five different categories.ConclusionsCommon aspects were identified including the experience of living with diabetes and support from diabetes care. These will be used to establish a basis for a tailored PROM for the NDR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.