Elsevier

Nurse Education in Practice

Volume 26, September 2017, Pages 68-73
Nurse Education in Practice

Original research
Evaluating a nursing erasmus exchange experience: Reflections on the use and value of the Nominal Group Technique for evaluation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.07.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper discusses the use of Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for European nursing exchange evaluation at one university. The NGT is a semi-quantitative evaluation method derived from the Delphi method popular in the 1970s and 1980s. The NGT was modified from the traditional version retaining the structured cycles and but adding a broader group discussion. The NGT had been used for 2 successive years but required analysis and evaluation itself for credibility and ‘fit’ for purpose which is presented here. It aimed to explore nursing students' exchange experiences and aid programme development futures exchanges and closure from exchange. Results varied for the cohorts and students as participants enthusiastically engaged generating ample data which they ranked and categorised collectively. Evaluation of the NGT itself was two fold: by the programme team who considered purpose, audience, inclusivity, context and expertise. Secondly, students were asked for their thoughts using a graffiti board. Students avidly engaged with NGT but importantly also reported an effect from the process itself as an opportunity to reflect and share their experiences. The programme team concluded the NGT offered a credible evaluation tool which made use of authentic student voice and offered interactive group processes. Pedagogially, it enabled active reflection thus aiding reorientation back to the United Kingdom and awareness of ‘transformative’ consequences of their exchange experiences.

Introduction

The Nominal Group Technique is an evaluative methodology which emerged from the work of Van de Ven and Delbecque (1971) for addressing group decision making processes. It is further described as an evaluative methodology which is semi quantitative and qualitative. It has been used in healthcare education for generating ideas to develop curricula and find solutions to issues in programme delivery (Perry and Linsley, 2006, Varga-Atkins et al., 2011, Lennon et al., 2012). Techniques to evaluate nursing experiences vary and in the main can be retrospective and identify objectives or competencies achieved. Reactions to experiences can be captured but more often the transformative nature of experience is not explored. Nursing education and preparation has evolved significantly over the last decade requiring nurses to widen and deepen their knowledge and awareness of health needs within a changing Europe and globally. Even nursing in the United Kingdom (UK) requires the same awareness. Papadopoulos, 2011, Papadopoulos. et al., 2016 argues nurses must use culturally appropriate and acceptable nursing/healthcare interventions which take into consideration both the patients’ and the carers' cultural backgrounds as well as beliefs, behaviours and values and the context in which care is given in a ‘culturally competent’ manner. This is challenging to measure, define and plan for. Unsurprisingly, over the last decade there is an appetite for, and increase in, nurse exchanges to experience nursing in another country or culture which is often afforded through the Erasmus study abroad exchange scheme. This may be likely to increase as students demand more from their programmes especially if they have to invest highly in their education. Even with the uncertainties of Brexit exchanges may still be a feature and so understanding the benefits to nursing students of exchanges is still needed.

Nursing education in the United Kingdom (UK) like many countries is underpinned by European Union directives (2013/55/EU and 2005/36/EU) as well as local professional body (Collins and Hewer, 2014). Nursing education does vary across European countries (located in universities or colleges) but as Lahtinen et al. (2014) report more significant similarities exist as opposed to differences in nursing education between the 45 (of the 47) different European Higher Education Area (EHEA, 2015) member countries. Clinical learning environments are recognised as complex social environments which are more complex in differing cultures and contexts and highly influence students’ learning. Furthermore supervisory systems also vary across Europe (Salminen et al., 2010) to add to the complexity. Thus understanding of these is required to effectively prepare and support students engaging with placements in Europe. Overall this provides challenges within nursing education but also offers opportunities for nursing students to become aware of the wider health and nursing issues beyond their home environment. The focus of this paper is not the experiences per se but how to best capture and develop experiences through a specific process: Nominal Group Technique.

Section snippets

Evaluation of clinical experiences - which approach?

Evaluation of student placement in the United Kingdom (UK) is an important element of good practice on all programmes (Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), 2010, Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2012). Much work has been done looking at dimensions of effective placements and satisfaction with specific tools addressing this (Saarikoski et al., 2008, Warne et al., 2010, Papastavrou et al., 2010, Gameel et al., 2015). However these are undertaken with ‘native’ students in their own country and such

Traditional Nominal Group Technique method

The ‘traditional’ approach comprises four (or possibly five) stages commencing with silent generation of ideas; round-robin feedback; discussion of each idea and further clarification and evaluation, preliminary voting and individual ranking of responses then refining the ranked items and perhaps actions to take forward. Crucially this needs to be initiated with an effective and clear question which ought to be sufficiently open-ended for participants to connect with and offer their opinions.

Method (modified NGT)

The adopted process followed the main stages as outlined above but was modified slightly to achieve the purpose of evaluating two aspects (key questions) and timed to allow discussion at the later stage. One of the programme team facilitated but did not participate or guide the process. The students were consulted and indicated they were happy to have a member of the team present and their role was clearly outlined acknowledging this was not research but evaluation. Since dissemination was

Application of nursing exchange evaluation and reorientation

NGT technique was chosen for this evaluation because of the key aspects outlined earlier. This method was used for three successive years (2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16). During each there were modifications mainly in the level of instructions given (facilitation) and the allocation of sufficient time to each stage until the described process was reached. In total with instructions and setting up this took approximately 2 h. It had not been formally evaluated and the programme team decided it

Discussion of the approach

Scrutiny of the NGT point to a number of attractive and persuasive components: it requires minimal preparation, it is efficient (considering time and outputs), it is collaborative and provides almost instantaneous results. The generation of such abundant data could also be daunting even small numbers of participants can have much to offer and managing all this could be challenging. The other view is that such a breadth of opinions and experiences or comments provides a very rich feedback from

Limitations

Previous experience using NGT for non-nursing students returning from placement in China (Bell and Cunningham, 2006) meant a ‘neutral’ person facilitating enabled a more balanced evaluation and safe environment (Tuffrey-Wijne et al., 2007). The programme team as facilitator may have influenced this and the extent of this is unknown. Critics indicate convenience sampling limits generalisability (Harvey and Holmes, 2012) one could argue they are a heterogenous group since they all elected to do

Conclusion

As an evaluation process it led to more detailed insights than other written or online tools alone. The benefits of such a ‘de-briefing’ and the opportunity to meet peers with whom they have shared a significant experience to exchange views are clear. This event served as an important ‘reflection’ and re-orientation to the UK which is often overlooked in such experiences (Greatrex-White, 2007, Cowan, 2007). Whilst there are benefits (speed, collated results, low cost) there are limitations

References (42)

  • M. Saarikoski et al.

    The Nurse Teacher in clinical practice: developing the new sub-dimension to Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision (CLES) scale

    Int. J. Nurs. Stud.

    (2008)
  • B. Szkudlarek

    Reentry—A review of the literature International

    J. Intercult. Relat.

    (2010)
  • T. Warne et al.

    An exploration of the clinical learning experience of nursing students in nine European countries

    Nurse Educ. Today

    (2010)
  • C. Bell et al.

    Evaluation of student experience on an overseas placement: students of traditional Chinese medicine on clinical placement at hospitals affiliated to beijing university of Chinese medicine

    J. Health, Soc. Environ. Issues

    (2006)
  • S. Bigedli et al.

    Clinical learning environments (actual and expected): perceptions of Iran University of Medical Sciences nursing students

    Med. J. Islamic Repub. Iran

    (2014)
  • O. Carney et al.

    The use of the Nominal Group Technique in research with community nurses

    J. Adv. Nurs.

    (1996)
  • R. Cowan

    An appraisal of European exchange programmes for nursing students

    Nurs. Stand.

    (2007)
  • P. Cranton

    Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: a Guide for Educators of Adults

    (2006)
  • A. Dobbie et al.

    Using a modified Nominal Group Technique as a curriculum evaluation tool

    Fam. Med.

    (2004)
  • European Higher Education Area (EHEA)

    The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Implementation Report

    (2015)
  • W. Gameel et al.

    Effective clinical learning environment as perceived by nursing students at AL Dawadmi, applied medical sciences college: actual versus preferred characteristics

    Int. J. Nurs. Didact.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (7)

    • The experiences of nurses who studied abroad with The Erasmus program during undergraduate education: A qualitative study

      2021, Nurse Education in Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous studies have indicated that individuals experience culture shock during exchange programs (Mikkonen et al., 2016). They have also indicated that students who temporarily stay in another country experience disappointment, uncertainty, fear, and stress (Hovland and Johannessen, 2015; Mikkonen et al., 2016; Owen et al., 2017) and loneliness and isolation (Cunningham, 2017). Adaptation to a new environment is also time-consuming (Marshall, 2017; Mikkonen et al., 2016).

    • A qualitative descriptive enquiry of nursing students’ perceptions of international clinical placement experiences

      2020, Nurse Education in Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Indeed in 2013, the International Council of Nurses identified that it was necessary for nurses to have responsive cultural and linguistic competencies in order to address patients’ healthcare needs (International Council of Nurses, 2013). In recent decades the shift towards multicultural societies has also had an impact on nurse education, as nursing faces healthcare needs that are evolving and complex in relation to variant cultural contexts (Cunningham, 2017). Without cultural competence, patient safety could be at risk, in terms of delay in the delivery of services or lack of adequate facilitation of adherence to treatment.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text