This program was initiated in order to address the issue of providing high quality and safe patients’ care in healthcare organizations. The Louisiana Health Care Group (LHC) in conjunction with the Department of Nursing (DON) at the University of Louisiana in Lafayette collaborated to evaluate nursing employment (Landry, Oberleitner, Landry & Borazjani, 2006). LHC is a healthcare organization that is made up of other several small divisions. This program was concerned about the quality of nurses that were getting their employment through Long-term Acute Care (LTAC) (Landry et al., 2006). There are different hospitals throughout Louisiana and through LTAC 69 employees have been registered as qualified nurses (Landry et al., 2006). The university of Louisiana where the program began is one of the largest and oldest university that offering nursing programs. The
Competency and validation process performed by JCAHO
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is the certified body that gives the validation process for nurses (Landry et al., 2006). According to JCAHO standards, every healthcare organization must have a competency validation procedure. The process must include,
- A clear statement of the competencies to be assessed
- The amount time that the assessment should last and preferably is should be one after every 3 years of accreditation cycle.
- Clearly stated strategies that will be used in the assessment process as well a list of the people that will be qualified in the competency assessment.
Although the JCAHO has clearly ruled on the measures that are most suitable in the assessment of nursing competencies, every state has its own measures. The general requirement to show proof of competence is the basic requirement for nurses to show evidence of continuing education in order for them to get their licenses renewed (Landry et al., 2006). However, some other boards of nursing have abolished the enforced mandatory CE in order to renew their members’ licenses (Landry et al., 2006).
Such boards have criticized the process arguing that CE does not guarantee nursing competency hence the move to abolish it as requirement. Up to now, the healthcare stakeholders have not come up with a universally acceptable definition of continuing competence (Landry et al., 2006). It is also unclear on whose mandate it is to endure and define the continuing competency in within healthcare organizations. However, a universal agreement about the need for competence to be demonstrated has been passed (Landry et al., 2006).
Simulated clinical learning experiences
Simulated clinical learning experiences are seen as the best means of developing and evaluating nursing competencies (Nickerson, Morrison, & Pollard, 2011). This has been formulated as a feature of skill development among the nursing professionals. The computer based education and clinical simulation programs were suggested as the most cost effective and most suitable methods to increase nurses’ competence (Landry et al., 2006). This decision was made after critical evaluation of the cost implications in training 45 RNs out of the total number of 75 LPNs across the state.
The clinical simulation learning experience is beneficial in a number of ways. One of the most significant advantages of using it is that it reduces the patients’ safety concerns (Landry et al., 2006).
This program was fundamentally started with the intention to lessen patients’ safety risks. Another advantage of simulated experiences is that it instructors to order the sequencing of measures that are to be undertaken (Landry et al., 2006). This paper has clearly discussed the major points in the article journal to shoe the collaborative efforts in determining staff development in nursing.
Landry, M., Oberleitner, M, M., Landry, H., & Borazjani, J. (2006).Education and Practice Collaboration. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 22(4): 163-169.
Nickerson, M., Morrison, B., & Pollard, M. (2011). Simulation in nursing staff development: A concept analysis. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 27(2): 81-89.