Modified Use of Team-Based Learning to Teach Nursing Documentation

Abstract

IntroductionNursing documentation is one of the main parts of clinical documentation. Poor knowledge of nurses in documentation methods could bring about problems for patients and nurses. It is very important to promote nurses’ knowledge and skills in this regard through effective teaching methods. The aim of this study was to use Team-Based Learning (TBL) to teach nursing documentation for nurses.MethodsTBL was implemented for 20 nurses participating in a nursing documentation workshop in Qazvin, Iran, in 2015. TBL consists of three main stages. The first stage is the learners’ reading about the subject matter. The second stage is measuring the learners’ knowledge about the subject matter they have studied using the Individual Readiness Assurance Test (IRAT). In the third stage, more profound learning is achieved by forming small groups and performing teamwork. Finally, participants’ views and experiences about TBL were investigated using observations and interviews.ResultsThe results showed that TBL method increases transfer of information and improves intrapersonal relationships and collaboration. All nurses were satisfied with the educational content and the TBL method. The strong points of this workshop included obtaining the viewpoints of the nurses, step-by-step integration of the contents of teamwork, consultation and active participation of all participants, high learning motivation, and creating a sense of competition. The nurses viewed TBL as a useful method to improve their reporting skills.ConclusionUsing new teaching methods based on teamwork could bring about achievements, including improvement of intrapersonal relationships and teamwork, which are requisites of nursing in addition to facilitating the learning of educational content. It is suggested that the TBL method be used to improve teaching and to increase nurses’ skills and knowledge.

Team‐based learning in nursing education: A scoping review

“… three were randomised controlled trials (Kang et al, 2016; Kim et al, 2016; Sakamoto et al, 2020); 19 were pre‐test post‐test studies, of which ten had two‐groups (Cho & Kweon, 2017; Clark et al, 2008; Eun & Hye Young, 2017; Harmon & Hills, 2015; Hemmati Maslakpak et al, 2015; Kim & Kim, 2020; Koohestani & Baghcheghi, 2016; Lee, 2018; Mennenga, 2013; Seo & Roh, 2020) and nine had one group (Cheng, Liou, Hsu, et al, 2014; Cheng et al, 2014; Cho & Kweon, 2017; Goolsarran et al, 2018; Park et al, 2015; Roh et al, 2020; Siah et al, 2019; Whittaker, 2015; Wong et al, 2017); 10 were descriptive cohort studies (Corbridge et al, 2013; Ebrahimpour & Pelarak, 2016; Isbell et al, 2016; Mennenga, 2015; Roh et al, 2015) (Ouellette & Blount, 2015; Ulrich et al, 2017) (Considine et al, 2014; Currey et al, 2018; Miles et al, 2017); six studies used mixed methods (Branney & Priego‐Hernández, 2018; Considine et al, 2014; Currey, Oldland, et al, 2015; Feingold et al, 2008; McRae et al, 2017; Morris, 2016); and three were qualitative studies (Currey, Eustace, et al, 2015; Göktepe et al, 2018; Oldland et al, 2017). …”

“…A summary of the characteristics of included studies is presented in Table 1. The studies were conducted in several countries; 13 from the United States of America (Clark et al, 2008; Corbridge et al, 2013; Feingold et al, 2008; Goolsarran et al, 2018; Harmon & Hills, 2015; Isbell et al, 2016; McRae et al, 2017; Mennenga, 2013, 2015; Miles et al, 2017; Ouellette & Blount, 2015; Ulrich et al, 2017; Whittaker, 2015); 11 from South Korea (Cho & Kweon, 2017; Eun & Hye Young, 2017; Kang et al, 2016; Kim et al, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2020; Lee, 2018; Park et al, 2015; Roh et al, 2014, 2015, 2020; Seo & Roh, 2020); six from Australia (Considine et al, 2013, 2014; Currey, Eustace, et al, 2015; Currey, Oldland, et al, 2015; Currey et al, 2018; Oldland et al, 2017); three from Iran (Ebrahimpour & Pelarak, 2016; Hemmati Maslakpak et al, 2015; Koohestani & Baghcheghi, 2016); two each from the United Kingdom (Branney & Priego‐Hernández, 2018; Morris, 2016) and Taiwan (Cheng, Liou, Hsu, et al, 2014; Cheng, Liou, Tsai, et al, 2014); and one each from Brazil (Sakamoto et al, 2020), Singapore (Siah et al, 2019), Turkey (Göktepe et al, 2018) and Hong Kong (Wong et al, 2017).…”

“…Eighteen studies were cohort studies of TBL in isolation (Considine et al, 2014; Corbridge et al, 2013; Currey, Eustace, et al, 2015; Currey, Oldland, et al, 2015; Currey et al, 2018; Ebrahimpour & Pelarak, 2016; Feingold et al, 2008; Göktepe et al, 2018; McRae et al, 2017; Mennenga, 2015; Miles et al, 2017; Morris, 2016; Oldland et al, 2017; Park et al, 2015; Roh et al, 2014, 2015; Siah et al, 2019; Wong et al, 2017) and three cohort studies were of TBL plus simulation (Goolsarran et al, 2018; Ouellette & Blount, 2015; Roh et al, 2020). TBL was compared with lectures in 16 studies (Branney & Priego‐Hernández, 2018; Cheng, Liou, Hsu, et al, 2014; Cheng, Liou, Tsai, et al, 2014; Cho & Kweon, 2017; Clark et al, 2008; Harmon & Hills, 2015; Hemmati Maslakpak et al, 2015; Isbell et al, 2016; Kim et al, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2020; Koohestani & Baghcheghi, 2016; Lee, 2018; Mennenga, 2013; Sakamoto et al, 2020; Seo & Roh, 2020; Ulrich et al, 2017), instructor‐led teaching in one study (Whittaker, 2015) and with learning packages in one study (Considine et al, 2013).…”

“…Student experience, satisfaction or perceptions of TBL were reported in 21 studies (Table S2). The three studies of one‐off TBL in 139 undergraduate students (Roh et al, 2015), 20 emergency, intensive care or surgical nurses (Ebrahimpour & Pelarak, 2016), and 49 emergency nurses (Considine et al, 2014) reported positive results. Of the twelve studies of multiple TBL sessions, seven studies in 1584 undergraduate students (Cheng, Liou, Hsu, et al, 2014; Cheng, Liou, Tsai, et al, 2014; Göktepe et al, 2018; Mennenga, 2013, 2015; Morris, 2016; Roh et al, 2014), two studies of 331 postgraduate students (Currey et al, 2018; Oldland et al, 2017), and studies of 40–50 nurse residents (Ouellette & Blount, 2015) and 63 nurse practitioner students (Corbridge et al, 2013) reported positive student experiences and perceptions, or high levels of satisfaction.…”

“…Second, the majority of studies in this scoping review were focused on undergraduate nursing education ( n = 28); four studies were of postgraduate students, all of whom were undertaking specialist critical care training under an employment‐academic partnership model (Currey, Eustace, et al, 2015; Currey, Oldland, et al, 2015; Currey et al, 2018; Oldland et al, 2017); and six studies were undertaken in hospital settings (Considine et al, 2013, 2014; Ebrahimpour & Pelarak, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2020; McRae et al, 2017; Seo & Roh, 2020). The predominant use of TBL for undergraduate education reflects the published literature.…”