Transcript Case Study Scenarios: Integrating QSEN Competency Responses

Case Study Scenarios:
Integrating QSEN
Competency Responses
Presented by: Lori Sprenger, PhD, RN
OBJECTIVES
The participant will:
1. Recognize the importance of integrating
QSEN competencies into case study (CS)
scenarios that may be used in a variety of nursing
education settings.
2. Understand the process for implementing CS
with QSEN integration into a variety of nursing
education settings.
3. Critique the effectiveness of implementing CS
with QSEN integration into a variety of nursing
education settings.
Objective 1: Recognize the importance of integrating
QSEN competencies into case study (CS) scenarios that may be
used in a variety of nursing education settings.
 QSEN Purpose (QSEN Institute, 2005-2014)
 Increase patient safety
 Increase overall prevalence of quality patient-care
outcomes
Goals of QSEN intervention strategy is to enable nursing
students to…
1. Understand the importance of QSEN
2. Feel empowered and confident to apply QSEN
competencies to hypothetical and real patient-care
situations in both the acute care and community care
settings.
Objective 2: Implement CS w/QSEN
integration into a variety of educational settings
 Classroom setting
 Whole group discussion
 Small group discussion
 Oral presentation
 Students create their own CS and QSEN integration
questions
 Online course room setting
 Individual or group responses
 Initial response to graded discussion area
 Peer responses to CS including QSEN responses
Objective 2 (continued)
 Clinical post-conference
 Individual patients (acute care or community
setting)
 F2F sharing of QSEN integration
 Online post conference sharing
 Groups of patients in the community setting
 F2F sharing of QSEN integration
 Online post conference sharing
Objective 3: Critique the effectiveness of
the intervention
 Qualitative response from students
 Verbal or written responses to open-ended questions
 Students’ overall general opinions about the CS w/ QSEN
integration
 What students liked best
 What students did not like
 Ask about students’ levels of confidence with applying
QSEN integration into CS scenarios
 What could be done to improve the CS w/ QSEN
integration strategy
 How did the CS w/QSEN competency integration enhance
your patient-care skills in the clinical setting?
Objective 3 (continued)
 Quantitative
 Closed ended question with yes or no response



Would you like to try the CS w/ QSEN integration activity on your own another time?
Would you like to try the CS w/ QSEN integration activity as a small group activity another
time?
Would you like to try the CS w/ QSEN integration activity as a classroom discussion another
time?
 Develop a Likert scale questionnaire regarding level of self-confidence (Shell, Murphy,
& Bruning, 1989)

0 = poor level of confidence, 5 = average level of self-confidence, 10 highly self-confident
 My level of confidence with completing the CS w/QSEN integration alone is:
 My level of confidence with completing the CS w/QSEN integration in a small group is:
 My level of confidence with completing the CS w/ QSEN integration in an open discussion
classroom setting is:
 Develop a Likert scale questionnaire about general overall opinion
 0---did not like, 5---no opinion, 10---liked it a lot
 My overall general opinion of the CS w/ QSEN integration is:
Evaluation Tool
Evaluation tool (continued)
Evaluation tool (continued)
Open-ended response:
How did the case study (CS) with QSEN competency integration affect
your patient-care interactions and patient-care outcomes in the clinical
setting?
Results of Evaluation (N = 39):
Qualitative
Helpful for participants
1.
Increased critical thinking skills
2.
Increased student confidence
3.
Increased knowledge of pharm concepts
4. Overall, helpful in general
Results of Evaluation (N = 39):
Qualitative (continued)
Helpful for patient care
1.
Increased patient education
2.
Provided rationale and knowledge for patient care
3.
Increased patient safety
4.
Increased medication safety
5.
Increased understanding of patient’s perspectives
6.
Helped ensure patient’s involvement in care
7.
Increased collaboration
8.
Increased focus on QSEN integration
9.
Increased focus on WPN (Whole Person Nursing) and patient-centered
care
Results of Evaluation (N = 39):
Qualitative (continued)
Non-helpful comments
1.
Hard to relate QSEN to patient care due to lack of
exposure
2. Did not apply QSEN to patient care
3.
Did not enjoy doing CS w/QSEN integration
4. Time consuming to do CS w/QSEN integration
5. CS w/ QSEN integration were not helpful
Results of Evaluation (N = 37):
Quantitative
 Quantitative—Mean SE
 ALONE = 8.9189
 SMALL GROUPS = 9.3514
 CLASS DISCUSSION = 9.5000
--Mean are different, but not statistically different
--Results not generalizable to a larger population
References
QSEN Institute. (2005-2014). Competencies. Retrieved from
http://qsen.org/competencies/
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy
and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and
writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81(1), 91–100. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
Thank you!
What questions do you have?