ArticleInternational journal of mental health nursing2025
How Do Mental Health Nursing Students in the United Kingdom Experience Assessment Against the NMC Generic Standards of Proficiency? A Cross-Field Comparison.
Article in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How Do Mental Health Nursing Students in the United Kingdom Experience Assessment Against the NMC Generic Standards of Proficiency? A Cross-Field Comparison.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2018 the UK's Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) moved from field-specific to generic standards of proficiency in training all four fields of nursing practice. Some educators claim these proficiencies exclude field-specific content, but there is a lack of comparative evidence on student feedback across each field. This study examined student nurses experiences of being assessed against these generic proficiencies to identify whether there are any differences between the fields of nursing in the United Kingdom. In a cross-sectional study employing a mixed-methods anonymous online survey, 531 nursing students in the final 3 months of training were surveyed across UK universities in 10 regions of the United Kingdom. Significant differences between nursing fields were observed in students' feedback on the NMC proficiencies (p = 0.000). Mental health nursing students reported the lowest levels of practice confidence; significant barriers to achieving proficiencies; and exclusion of field-specific knowledge and skills, which devalued and threatened their professional identity. Adult nursing students reported high levels of practice confidence; fewer barriers to achieving proficiencies; variable experiences of placement support; and a preference for more focus on communication skills. Feedback indicates that students experience the generic proficiencies as a list of medical procedures that exclude communication and relationship management skills. The findings suggest that further evaluation and guidance are required to ensure that mental health proficiencies are included in practice assessment documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.