Value of narrative education in standardized training of geriatric nursing staff

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2022.11.020

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the value of narrative education in the standardized training of geriatric nursing staff.

Methods

A total of 48 nursing staff working in the Geriatric Department of the 980th Hospital of the PLA Joint Support Force from January 2018 to December 2019 were selected and divided into an observation group (n=24) and a control group (n=24) using the random number table. There were 8 males and 16 females in the control group with a mean age of (25.7±5.7) years, and there were 10 males and 14 females in the observation group with a mean age of (26.6±4.9) years. The control group received standardized training using conventional methods alone, and the observation group received standardized training using narrative education combined with conventional methods. The scores of caring behavior scale, Jefferson Empathy Scale, and nursing professional self-concept scale before and 3 months after training were recorded and compared between the two groups, and the value of narrative education in the standardized training of geriatric nursing staff was analyzed.

Results

After training, the care behavior scale score of the observation group and the control group was 141.38±7.18 and 136.52±8.81, respectively, and the Jefferson Empathy Scale score of the two groups was 117.52±4.17 and 113.67±6.11, respectively; the care behavior scale and Jefferson Empathy Scale scores of the observation group were both significantly higher than those of the control group (P＜0.05 for both). After training, the skill score of the observation group and the control group was 17.52±1.98 and 16.18±2.09, respectively, and the communication score of the two groups was 17.12±1.96 and 15.88±2.08, respectively; the skill score and communication score of the observation group were both significantly higher than those of the control group (P＜0.05 for both).

Conclusion

The application of narrative education in the standardized training of geriatric nursing staff is beneficial to improve the quality of humanistic care and empathy of nursing staff, and to cultivate their professional attitude.

Key words: Geriatric, Narrative education, Nursing staff, Humanistic care, Empathy ability, Professional attitude

Huichuan Zuo, Yanping Fan, Ya Zhang, Jing Li, Jingyi Tang. Value of narrative education in standardized training of geriatric nursing staff[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(11): 1146-1150.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2022.11.020

https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V16/I11/1146

Figures/Tables 3

References 20

1	夏碧芸, 程云, 吴秀菊, 等. 老年科护士临床护理能力的观察与影响因素分析 [J].老年医学与保健, 2019, 25(3):407-410.
2	Kugler X. Recognizing Delirium: The value of having geriatric training as an advanced practice clinician and using a framework of age-friendly care [J]. J Gerontol Nurs, 2020, 46(11):49-50.
3	Cawkwell PB, O'Neill M, Hill EL, et al. Improving communication between nursing staff and on-call residents via a standardized paging protocol [J]. Acad Psychiatry, 2020, 44(3):295-298.
4	Fulmer T. A retrospective/prospective on the future of geriatric nursing [J]. Geriatr Nurs, 2020, 41(1):29-31.
5	Miller DT, McCarthy DM, Fant AL, et al. The standardized letter of evaluation narrative: differences in language use by gender [J]. West J Emerg Med, 2019, 20(6):948-956.
6	宋涛, 张冬红. 基于护士人文关怀能力培养的精神科叙事教育网络教学系统的开发 [J].护理学报, 2020, 27(2):11-15.
7	Wolf ZR. The caring concept and nurse identified caring behaviors [J]. Top Clin Nurs, 1986, 8(2):84-93.
8	Yang Hui, 安秀琴, 徐建萍, 等. 杰弗逊共情量表的编译及评价 [J].护理研究, 2008, 22(22):2063-2064,2066.
9	杨桂荣, 林细吟, 杜玉忠, 等. 护理专业自我概念量表的信度和效度检测 [J].护理学杂志, 2008, 23(6):4-6.
10	Rocafort MC. The development of plurilingual education through multimodal narrative reflection in teacher education: a case study of a pre-service teacher's beliefs about language education [J]. Can Mod Lang Rev, 2019, 75(1):40-64.
11	邓钊, 仇海燕, 杜红娣, 等. 老年人模拟体验教学对老年科新入职护士共情能力的影响 [J].护理研究, 2020, 34(10):1828-1830.
12	Ljunggren J, Orupabo J. Moving beyond: narratives of higher educational aspirations among descendants of immigrants' in vocational training [J]. Br J Sociol Educ, 2020, 41(5):701-716.
13	刘佳, 魏占云, 钱玉英, 等. 老年综合评估结合岗位胜任力在老年科住院医师规范化培训中的应用 [J].中国病案, 2019, 20(11):85-88.
14	Divya KY, Velayudhan B. E-learning Challenges in Nursing Education during COVID-19 Pandemic-A Narrative Review [J]. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol, 2021, 15(2):2317-2322.
15	仲丽芸, 段熠, 何川. 情景模拟教学在神经外科低年资护士规范化培训中的应用 [J].中华现代护理杂志, 2019, 25(24):3063-3065.
16	崔金锐, 胡露红, 旷婉, 等. 临床护理人员人文关怀品质与医学叙事能力的相关性研究 [J].护理学杂志, 2021, 36(9):58-60.
17	Hunt LJ. Improving care for older adults in the Emergency Department warrants greater investment in geriatric nursing-Stat! [J]. Geriatr Nurs, 2020, 41(3):345-346.
18	Jaén-Pérez J, Herrera-Nieto MJ. Spreading of the geriatric nursing specialty among users, their caregivers and undergraduate nursing students in the town of Jaén [J]. Gerokomos, 2019, 30(1):12-17.
19	付帅, 崔立刚, 王淑敏, 等. 叙事医学在超声科住院医师规范化培训中的应用价值 [J].中国病案, 2021, 22(4):77-79.
20	田瑞杰, 史娟娟. 叙事教育在新入职护士灾害护理培训中的应用 [J].护理研究, 2021, 35(4):731-733.

组别	年龄（岁）	性别		工作年限（年）	学历		来源地
组别	年龄（岁）	男	女	工作年限（年）	本科	硕士	城镇	农村
观察组	26.6±4.9	10（41.7）	14（58.3）	6.8±3.3	18（75.0）	6（25.0）	13（54.2）	11（45.8）
对照组	25.7±5.7	8（33.3）	16（66.7）	6.0±3.4	20（83.3）	4（16.7）	9（37.5）	15（62.5）
t/χ²值	0.555	0.356		0.825	0.505		1.343
P值	0.581	0.551		0.413	0.477		0.247

组别	年龄（岁）	性别		工作年限（年）	学历		来源地
组别	年龄（岁）	男	女	工作年限（年）	本科	硕士	城镇	农村
观察组	26.6±4.9	10（41.7）	14（58.3）	6.8±3.3	18（75.0）	6（25.0）	13（54.2）	11（45.8）
对照组	25.7±5.7	8（33.3）	16（66.7）	6.0±3.4	20（83.3）	4（16.7）	9（37.5）	15（62.5）
t/χ²值	0.555	0.356		0.825	0.505		1.343
P值	0.581	0.551		0.413	0.477		0.247

组别	关怀行为量表（分）		杰弗逊共情量表（分）
组别	培训前	培训后	培训前	培训后
观察组（n=24）	132.68±9.72	141.38±7.18^a	103.37±6.02	117.52±4.17^a
对照组（n=24）	131.29±10.17	136.52±8.81^a	102.58±5.57	113.67±6.11^a
t值	0.484	2.095	0.472	2.550
P值	0.631	0.042	0.639	0.014

组别	关怀行为量表（分）		杰弗逊共情量表（分）
组别	培训前	培训后	培训前	培训后
观察组（n=24）	132.68±9.72	141.38±7.18^a	103.37±6.02	117.52±4.17^a
对照组（n=24）	131.29±10.17	136.52±8.81^a	102.58±5.57	113.67±6.11^a
t值	0.484	2.095	0.472	2.550
P值	0.631	0.042	0.639	0.014

项目	时点	观察组	对照组	t值	P值
灵活性	培训前	20.08±3.29	20.86±2.95	0.865	0.392
灵活性	培训后	21.75±2.84	21.26±2.36	0.650	0.519
技能	培训前	15.04±2.13	14.87±2.36	0.262	0.795
技能	培训后	17.52±1.98^a	16.18±2.09^a	2.280	0.027
沟通交流	培训前	14.37±1.85	14.62±2.15	0.432	0.668
沟通交流	培训后	17.12±1.96^a	15.88±2.08^a	2.126	0.039
领导	培训前	10.37±2.02	10.84±1.83	0.845	0.403
领导	培训后	11.53±1.88	11.25±1.69	0.543	0.590
满意度	培训前	21.31±2.94	20.87±3.15	0.500	0.619
满意度	培训后	21.65±2.79	21.06±2.73	0.740	0.463
总分	培训前	82.36±10.55	83.04±8.18	0.250	0.804
总分	培训后	92.36±7.05^a	87.82±7.48^a	2.164	0.036

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export