Professional Experience Placement

Sedgwick and Harris (2012) provide a critique of the preceptorship model from the Canadian perspective.  Similarly to Australian models,  Canada uses a preceptor model to supervise undergraduate nurses while undertaking work integrated learning or professional experience. These authors provide background to the development of this model and argue that the clinical setting as a learning environment; lack of faculty staff and inadequate preparation of preceptors and facilitators does not meet the learning needs or program outcomes for students. The authors trace the development of the model and discuss the current challenges.  The challenges suggested included inconsistent selection practices and preparation of preceptors; as well as pressures to confirm to the curriculum and traditional academic calendar that may not be optimum for the learning experience. High patient acuity, higher through put of patients and staff shortages, coupled with casualisation of the workforce and overtime contribute to a less than optimum experience for students.  Reports of ineffective use of students’ time and varying quality of learning opportunities and a limited number of placement sites also contribute to a diminished learning environment.

Sedgewick and Harris (2012) deconstruct the the preceptorship model and describe the triad of student, preceptor and supervising faculty. The suggested each member of the group is critical to success of the preceptorship experience. The authors cite there are hidden costs such as travel, appropriate communication methods including telephone, emails, text and social media channels. They also indicated that faculty visits do not necessarily meet the needs of students or preceptors. Selection of supervising staff may be conducted by clinical site and the learning institution may not know the learning needs of the preceptors. From the institutional perspective, sessional staff may be employed to teach their clinical programs and orientation and an an understanding of the model and / or learning outcomes may not be satisfactory.

The authors detail the benefits of students working alongside clinical staff, Sedgewick and Harris (2012) indicated that the environment may have limited teaching opportunities or may not facilitate timely feedback. They mention the stress associated with using this model in the clinical environment for each member of the model. The authors conclude that it is imperative that nurse educators, nursing programs and leaders in the practice setting engage in reflection of the current models to facilitate clinical or professional experience to guide and support the development of safe and competent graduate nurses.

These authors raise similar issues to those in Australia. Clinical supervisors, preceptors and facilitators need to have regular communication with the academic staff about student progress. Clinical supervisors also need to have frequent conversations with their students. This value of a functional triad mentioned by the authors cannot be underestimated. It enables issues to be noted, monitored, discussed and if necessary interventions can be undertaken to support all members of this learning and teaching group.

How do you perceive the preceptorship model? What is your experience? If you have any suggestions or comments about the preceptorship model you are welcome to post them here. Join us at @PEPCommunity.