ArticleBMJ open2025
Novice nurses' experience with an 'Attending Rounds' clinical case mentoring model: a phenomenological study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Clinical Practice of the Proactive Health Concept in Chronic Disease Management: A Qualitative Study from the Perspective of Neurology Medical Staff.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the lived experiences of novice nurses during their transition from participation in the 'Attending Rounds' clinical case mentoring training model to independent clinical practice, and to understand its influence on their development of clinical competence, role identity and team collaboration.
designA descriptive phenomenological study using semistructured, face-to-face interviews, guided by Colaizzi's seven-step method of data analysis.
settingTwo large teaching hospitals in eastern China, representing secondary and tertiary levels of care.
participants12 novice nurses (nine female, three male; aged 22-29 years; bachelor's or master's degree holders) who had completed the 'Attending Rounds' training at least four times and subsequently entered clinical practice. Participants were recruited purposively to ensure variation in demographic and educational backgrounds.
interventionsNot applicable PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were novice nurses' lived experiences and perceptions of the 'Attending Rounds' model, captured through semistructured interviews and analysed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Experiential domains included: (1) skill improvement-enhanced clinical judgement, patient management and ward management; (2) learner anxiety and growth-initial discomfort and stress evolving into confidence and resilience; (3) role modelling-professional inspiration and learning through observation of senior nurses and (4) team cohesion-improved communication, collaboration and patient-centred care.
resultsFour overarching themes with 12 subthemes were identified: (1) skill improvement (clinical judgement, patient and ward management); (2) stress and growth (initial anxiety and adaptation leading to confidence); (3) role modelling (learning from senior nurses, leadership inspiration) and (4) team cohesion (enhanced collaboration, strengthened patient-centred care). Nurses described initial discomfort and anxiety, but over time developed greater competence, confidence and awareness of professional responsibilities.
conclusionsThe 'Attending Rounds' model facilitated novice nurses' transition into clinical practice by integrating structured case-based learning, role modelling and team collaboration. While stress and anxiety were common at the outset, these experiences were ultimately perceived as catalysts for growth. Findings suggest the model may be further refined to support novice nurses' professional identity formation and clinical competence.
trial registrationThis study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Research Registry (registration number: MR-33-24-058353).
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.