Premium
‘Seeking authorization’: a grounded theory exploration of mentors’ experiences of assessing nursing students on the borderline of achievement of competence in clinical practice
Author(s) -
Cassidy Simon,
Coffey Michael,
Murphy Fiona
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.13292
Subject(s) - grounded theory , mentorship , competence (human resources) , nursing , qualitative research , psychology , focus group , health care , accountability , medical education , medicine , social psychology , political science , sociology , social science , anthropology , law
Aim To develop a substantive theoretical explanation of how mentors make sense of their experiences where nursing students are on the borderline of achievement of competence in clinical practice. Background The reluctance of Registered Nurse mentors to fail nursing students in clinical practice despite concerns about competence remains a contemporary issue in international healthcare education. Mentors’ assessment decisions have considerable impact for a variety of key stakeholders, not least for students in these circumstances. Design Grounded theory qualitative study. Methods Phase one involved 20 individual semi‐structured interviews with nurse mentors in one United Kingdom National Health Service Health Board (July–October 2009). Phase two included eight individual semi‐structured interviews and seven focus groups with mentors and practice educators ( n = 38) in four further Health Boards (June 2011–February 2012). Data were analysed using open, axial and selective coding consistent with grounded theory method. Findings Three categories ‘the conundrum of practice competence,’ ‘the intensity of nurturing hopefulness,’ and ‘managing assessment impasse,’ led to the study's substantive theoretical explanation – ‘Seeking authorization: Establishing collective accountability for mentorship.’ This demonstrates how mentors are dependent on key sources of support and feedback to validate their assessment decision‐making, notwithstanding substantial personal, professional and organizational pressures. Conclusion We conclude that management of borderline assessment situations is considerably developed by recognition of the authorizing effects of a wider community of assessors. Consequently, we identify the personal, professional and organizational implications involved in the preparation, support and regulation of mentors specifically during borderline assessment circumstances.