instructors were scheduled on individual bases.

During the course of the program, the students reported feeling a part of the unit team and gaining

insights into the functions of team leaders, head nurses, and unit secretaries. The preceptors were seriously
committed to their new role, examined their own skills, studied and carefully evaluated student progress.
. The unit staff welcomed the students and worked hard to maintain an exemplary standard of nursing
care. We were encouraged to see our students grow in self-confidence and independence and to witness
rapport and caring between student and preceptor. Instructors worked flexible hours to accommodate
meeting with students and preceptors working various shifts; aside from scheduled meetings, we worked on
an on-call basis.

The evaluation system included questionnaires to be completed by both students and preceptors.
Evaluation of the clinical experience and of preceptors was completed by the students. Both students and
preceptors were asked to complete weekly progress notes, illustrating the student's ongoing performance. A
summary evaluation of the student was completed by the preceptor. An evaluation tool was designed to
collect data related to the evaluation system itself.

Evaluation

The overall feedback was positive and supportive of the program. Students identified consistent, direct
supervision; continuity of learning and evaluation; a decrease in anxiety and an increase in confidence; and a
realistic approach to nursing as key elements of the program. They felt respected and accepted as part of
the nursing staff. They described the program as well organized and a valuable learning experience. Most
students felt that the evaluation system was fair, accurate, and immediate and that it provided for the
necessary feedback on strengths and weaknesses. The only criticism from students was that completing
weekly progress notes was too time consuming.

The preceptors identified a greater continuity in teaching as a program plus. Most felt it had been a
rewarding experience. They found the students to be less stressed, more secure, and better able to build
self-confidence. Many identified the program as vastly superior to the prior practicum experience. Some
preceptors felt that the weekly progress notes were necessary as they identified areas where the student
could improve and provided an ongoing means to evaluate an experience. Others found them difficult to
complete initially but easier over time with assistance from instructors. Preceptors in specialty areas
identified the need for forms more directly related to their specialties. One preceptor thought that the
grading system needed to be more definitive so that excellent work could be clearly rewarded.

Since the beginning of the preceptorship program, graduates of our nursing school have listed the

‘\preceptor course as one of the strengths of their nursing program. From our experiences, we make the

following recommendations for future programs: i

1. that one college instructor carry over from one year to the next to provide liaison and planning
continuity;

2. that preceptors receive more information on evaluation writing;

3. that a mid-session conference be held for preceptors and students to discuss "how things are going";
and

4. that preceptors meet to form a support group to share thoughts and feelings on being a preceptor,
discuss the positive rewards of the role, and share problems and methods of resolving them.

Summary

After four years we still believe in the preceptorship concept. Our rationale has been supported by the
positive feedback received each year from students and preceptors, as well as from hospital personnel, in
relation to the new graduates’ higher level of assertiveness, maturity, and clinical competence.

Mary Gardiner Linda Martin
Nursing Department Nursing Department

For further information, contact the authors at Red Deer College, 56 Avenue - 32nd Street, Red Deer, Alberta
T4N 5H5.

 

 

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor
October 10, 1986, Vol. VIII, No. 22

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscriptions are available to nonconsortium members for $35 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg

Foundation and Sid WW. Richardson Foundation. Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and monthly during the summer.
© The University of Texas at Austin, 1986

Further duplication is permitted only by MEMBER institutions for their own personnel. ISSN 0199-106X

 

els

 

—

 

12