4.6.2 A systematic review of the role activities of the academic in clinical practice (328)

Michelle Howarth, Lecturer, School of Nursing, University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom Co authors: Maria Grant, Jackie Leigh & Cyril Murray M.L.Howarth2@salford.ac.uk

Abstract:

Background:

Supporting students in clinical practice is a challenge faced by many academics, whilst roles developed to address this have merely resulted in ambiguity and incongruity about the academics key functions. This has been exacerbated by the lack of definitive guidance from professional bodies. Although the requirement of 20% of time to be spent in practice is expressed (ENB 1993), there remains no explicit guidance which outline role activities (NMC 2006).

Aim:

To systematically review the research literature on the role activities of the academic in practice (AiP).

Methodology:

A team based approach was adopted to identify and subsequently refine a list of database search terms for research literature published in 1990-2006. Following initial assessment of retrieved abstracts, documents were obtained for further analysis. Calls for grey literature were made to UK schools of nursing and projects listed on the national research register. All 30 documents meeting the project inclusion criteria were subject to supplementary searches on citation indexes and critically appraised using validated assessment tools (University of Salford 2005).

Results:

Three areas of activity emerged from the appraised research literature. These were: staff related activities with sub-themes on education, practice development, staff development, and communications and liaison; student related activities with sub-themes on teaching, liaison and support, and assessment; and development of self with sub-themes on hands-on care, keeping up-to-date, and issues of clinical credibility.

Discussion:

Though the composition of AiP activities is not entirely surprising, the range of activities is broad and diverse. However, no definitive models of practice have been identified and activities could equally be undertaken in isolation as those cohered into a more expansive role.

Conclusion:

A clearer understanding of the range of activities being undertaken by AiPs is now available, though few publish models exist to evaluate their effectiveness. Further collaborative research is required.

Biography:

Michelle Howarth Michelle’s professional background as an RGN provided over 10 years of experience which influenced her research career. Michelle has since pursued her research career and has experience in qualitative methodology. Michelle’s PhD is focussed on determining the patient experience of multi-professional working in chronic back pain services and the extent of patient centrality