Fit for practice: Project 2000 student nurses' views on how well the curriculum prepares them for clinical practice

Nurse Education Today

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 350-357

  Fulbrook, Paul ^a,b,c   Rolfe, Gary ^a,b,c   Albarran, John ^a,b,c   Boxall, Frances ^a,b,c  

^a BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CURRICULUM; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; NURSING; NURSING EDUCATION; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; NURSING STUDENT; NURSING THEORY; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF CONCEPT; STANDARD; TIME; UNIVERSITY;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COHORT STUDIES; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, NURSING, BACCALAUREATE; HUMANS; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; NURSING EDUCATION RESEARCH; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; NURSING THEORY; NURSING, SUPERVISORY; ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCHOOLS, NURSING; SELF EFFICACY; STATE MEDICINE; STUDENTS, NURSING; TIME FACTORS; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 0042594805     PISSN: 02606917     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1054/nedt.2000.0479     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Allen C. 1990 P. problems. Nursing Standard. 5(6):2000;43-44.
2. Bines H. Issues in course design. Bines H., Watson D. Developing professional education. 1992;Open University Press, Buckingham.
3. Blackburn M. Be proud of the project. Nursing Standard. 6(36):1992;44-45.
4. Bryman A., Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS Release 8 for Windows. 1999;Routledge, London. p. 164-203.
5. Chapman J. Research - what it is and what it is not. Perry A., Jolley M. Nursing: a knowledge base for practice. 1991;Edward Arnold, London.
6. Cook S. Mind the theory-practice gap in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 16(12):1991;1462-1469.
7. Cuthbertson P. Attitudes to project 2000: a survey of qualified nurses. Nursing Standard. 11(11):1996;38-41.
8. Dolan B. Reflection and celebration. Dolan B. Project 2000: Reflection and celebration. 1993;Scutari Press, London.
9. Elkan R., Robinson J. Project 2000: the gap between theory and practice. Nurse Education Today. 13(4):1993;295-298.
10. Elkan, R. Hillman, R. Robinson, J. 1993, The implementation of Project 2000 in a District Health Authority: the effects on the nursing service (a second interim report). Department of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, University of Nottingham.
11. Elkan R., Robinson J. Project 2000: a review of published research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 22(2):1995;386-392.
12. Goad N. Growing pains and gains. Nursing Standard. 6(36):1992;46-47.
13. Hicks C. The shortfall in published research: a study of nurses research and publication activities. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 21(3):1995;594-604.
14. Hunt J. Indicators for nursing practice: the use of research findings. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 6(3):1981;189-194.
15. Jowett, S. Walton, I. Payne, S. 1994, Challenges and change in nurse education - a study of the implementation of project 2000. National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough.
16. Kendrick K., Simpson A. The nurses' reformation: philosophy and pragmatics of project 2000. Soothill K., Henry C., Kendrick K. Themes and perspectives in nursing. 1992;Chapman & Hall, London.
17. Lindsay B. The gap between theory and practice. Nursing Standard. 5(4):1990;34-35.
18. Lindop E. Individual stress and its relationship to termination of nurse training. Nurse Education Today. 9(3):1989;172-179.
19. Macleod-Clark J., Maben J., Jones K. Project 2000: perceptions of the philosophy and practice of nursing. 1996;English National Board, London.
20. Nolan M., Morgan L., Curran M., Clayton J., Gerrish K., Parker K. Evidence-based care: can we overcome the barriers? British Journal of Nursing. 7(20):1998;1273-1278.
21. Payne D. The knives are out for P2000. Nursing Times. 95(4):1999;14-15.
22. Phillips R. The need for research-based midwifery practice. British Journal of Midwifery. 2(7):1994;335-338.
23. Power P. High anxiety. Nursing Times. 92(5):1996;58.
24. Rafferty A. M., Allcock N., Lathlean J. The theory/practice 'gap': taking issue with the issue. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 23(4):1996;685-691.
25. Rolfe, G. 1996, Closing the theory-practice gap: a new paradigm for nursing. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
26. Royal College of Nursing, 1985, The Education of Nurses: A new dispensation, (The Judge report). RCN, London.
27. Schön, D. 1987, Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
28. Stenhouse L. Case study and case records. British Educational Research Journal, 4(2):1978;21-39.
29. Twinn S., Davies S. The supervision of Project 2000 students in the clinical setting: issues and implications for practitioners. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 5(3):1996;177-183.
30. Project 2000: A new preparation for practice. 1986;UKCC, London.
31. Fitness for practice. 1999;UKCC, London.
32. Walters A. UKCC Education review supports project 2000. Nursing Standard. 15(13):1999;4.
33. White E. Clinical supervision and project 2000: The identification of some substantive issues. NT Research. 1(2):1996;102-110.
34. Willis J. The placement dilemma. Nursing Times. 92(5):1996;55-58.