Study Guide

Objective

The student
Can map and develop a professional paradigm as an advanced clinical nurse
Have readiness to critically analyse and evaluate advanced communication skills with patients/clients and employees
Can apply models for the reflection that shows complex overall needs of patients, family and environment in order to be able to practice the ability for critical analysis and evaluation

Content

Advanced clinical nursing care
Critical thinking

Location and time

Autumn 2020 campus Vaasa

Materials

Boman, E., Levy, M. R., & Fagerström, L. (2020). Differences and similarities in scope of practice between registered nurses and nurse specialists in emergency care: an interview study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 34(2), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12753
Boman, E., Glasberg, A.-L., Levy-Malmberg, R., & Fagerström, L. (2019). “Thinking outside the box”: advanced geriatric nursing in primary health care in Scandinavia. BMC Nursing, 18(1), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0350-2
Boman, E., Levy, M. R., & Fagerström, L. (2019). Nurses’ understanding of becoming nurse practitioner role in the Norwegian emergency care context: A qualitative study. Nordic Journal of Nursing research. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057158518783166
Bryant-Lukosius, D., & DiCenso, A. (2004). A framework for the introduction and evaluation of advanced practice nursing roles. Journal of Advanced Nursing (Wiley-Blackwell), 48(5), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03235.x
Kerr, L., & Macaskill, A. (2020). The journey from nurse to advanced nurse practitioner: applying concepts of role transitioning. British Journal of Nursing, 29(10), 561–565. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2020.29.10.561
Mackey, H., Noonan, K., Kennedy Sheldon, L., Singer, M., & Turner, T. (2018). Oncology Nurse Practitioner Role: Recommendations from the Oncology Nursing Society’s Nurse Practitioner Summit. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 22(5), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1188/18.CJON.516-522

Teaching methods

Lectures, group discussion

Exam schedules

written assignment , instruction will be given during the lecture

Completion alternatives

evaluation according to general instruction at Novia from 0-5

Student workload

1 sp = 27 hours

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

0-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject
Assessment criteria for written work:
The student has followed the instructions and her knowledge of the other students' work is
inadequate. The student shows limited substantive knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows a lack of knowledge regarding the other students' written work. The
students have followed the instructions for the written work. but has a lack of knowledge in
the substance concerns the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student is accountable for the literature, can reflect and motivate their positions
Assessment criteria for written work:
The student has followed the instructions for the written work and shows partly insufficient knowledge
regarding the other students' written work
The student masters the substance of his work but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student shows an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional
Criteria for evaluating written work individually or in groups
Study period

Qualifications

No prerequisites