ArticleBMC nursing2025
An educational intervention to bridge the gap between nurses and nurse assistants- a focus group study in Norway.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have found that a mixed staffing model where nurses and nurse assistants work as a team can deliver better care quality than standard nurse staffing models. However, there are issues related to communication gaps, unclear job descriptions, hierarchical barriers, resource limitations, cultural and systemic factors that need to be solved. The aim of the current study was to explore nurses' and nurse assistants' experiences with an educational intervention to bridge the gap between nurses and nurse assistants.
methodsThe educational intervention involved nurses and nurse assistants and comprised a lecture of 90 min, followed by 60 min of simulation in the respective subject 'respiratory issues' and 'sepsis'. A qualitative study design, with six focus group interviews (N = 23), was used. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis in-line with recommendations from Braun and Clarke.
resultsThrough analysis, two themes were identified, namely (1) Simulation; a love-hate relationship and (2) Increased insight into each other's competence and understanding of each other's focus. Both nurses and nurse assistants were sceptic to simulation as an educational intervention. However, all appreciated the combination of theory and simulation. The level seemed appropriate for nurse assistants, while nurses perceived the level as mostly repetition. The education day increased insight into each other's competence and understanding of each other's focus across wards and specialties, and across nurses and nurse assistants.
conclusionsEducational interventions between nurses and nurse assistants may be appropriate to decrease communication and collaboration gaps across occupations. Combining theoretical lectures and simulations also seemed to support this. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.