Nursing student evaluations of the quality of mentoring support in individual, dual and group mentoring approach during clinical training: A prospective cohort study

Abstract

Objective: To examine how Bachelor of Science nursing students evaluate the quality of mentoring support during clinical training using three different types of mentoring approaches. Background:The mentoring approach and the mentor-student relationship are important factors that determine nursing students' satisfaction with their clinical experience. However, there are significant differences in the approaches to mentoring in nursing, and there is no global consensus around a universal form of mentorship. Study design and methods:The participants were first-year Bachelor of Science students (n = 86) divided into three groups exposed to three different mentoring approaches: Group 1 = dual (two mentors/ group of students); Group 2 = individual (one mentor/ one student); Group 3 = group (one mentor/group of students). The validated Mentor Support Evaluation Questionnaire (MSEQ) was used to assess the quality of mentoring support.Results: Students from Group 2 reported a significantly higher level of mentoring support quality (P < 0.01; M = 4.8; SD = 0.32) in comparison to students from Group 1 (M = 4.1; SD = 0.66) and students from Group 3 (M = 3.32; SD = 1.71).Discussion: Nursing students exposed to different mentoring approaches vary in their reported quality of mentoring support. The highest quality of mentoring support was reported by students in the individual approach, and the lowest quality of mentoring support was reported by students mentored in a group of four to six students by AUTHORS IVANA GUSAR MSN, RN, PhD candidate 1,2

Psychometric Analysis of the Professional Identity Questionnaires in Croatian Nursing Student Context

“…A difference appeared in the original factor “Professional self-efficacy,” whose items in the Croatian version were distributed between the factors “Knowledge” (KF) and “Professional role model” (PRPF). These differences in the distribution of items among factors are probably related to the context of education in Croatia, which is more theory oriented, and to clinical education in group work of six or more students, which is not an “adequate” situation in which students can assess their self-efficacy ( Gusar et al., 2020 ). This could point to still insufficient quantity of professional knowledge and experience which is related self-efficacy of our participants.…”

“…The assumption is that there are cultural differences as well as differences in the education system. It is possible that theory dominates in Croatia in relation to clinical practice, given the way in which clinical practice is organized ( Gusar et al, 2020 ). Similar results that speak in favor of the fact that the insufficient professional knowledge and experience has a significant influence in forming the PI are published in the qualitative study conducted in 24 hospitals in Iran, within the nurses employed in ICU Ward ( Mousazadeh et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Similar results that speak in favor of the fact that the insufficient professional knowledge and experience has a significant influence in forming the PI are published in the qualitative study conducted in 24 hospitals in Iran, within the nurses employed in ICU Ward ( Mousazadeh et al, 2019 ). Further, the possible cause of such results is also the way of organization of half of the lessons for nursing student in the form of clinical training (according to Directive 2005/36/EC) in the group work of six or more students, which makes the development of mutual relationships and perception of mentors as professional role models more difficult ( Browne et al, 2018 ; Gusar et al, 2020 ). Item 19 (I feel poorly prepared for a real job) which belongs to factor 4 (Professional Self-efficiency) in the original survey, is also not included in the Croatian version of the survey, possibly because of our participants’ present and expressed awareness of still undergoing the phase of education which implies further preparation for the competent execution of the works and tasks in the nursing range ( Simmonds et al, 2020 ).…”

The nurse teacher’s pedagogical cooperation with students, the clinical learning environment and supervision in clinical practicum: a European cross-sectional study of graduating nursing students

“…As such, mentors are considered to be essential professional role models for students by supporting their professional development [26]. The mentor supervision relationship, commonly conducted as a named, individualized, one-to-one relationship, has been reported as being the most important component of a student's clinical practicum experience [8,18,24,27]. When comparing the group and one-to-one supervision models, the most satisfying supervision model for nursing students has been the one-to-one model [8,27,28].…”

“…The mentor supervision relationship, commonly conducted as a named, individualized, one-to-one relationship, has been reported as being the most important component of a student's clinical practicum experience [8,18,24,27]. When comparing the group and one-to-one supervision models, the most satisfying supervision model for nursing students has been the one-to-one model [8,27,28]. Moreover, the high frequency of this mentor relationship [6,24,28] and private unscheduled mentor-student discussions [24] are seen to be associated with a student's positive clinical practicum experience.…”