Aim: Compassion and empathy are integral to safe and effective patient care. However, to date, most studies have focused on exploring, defining, measuring and analysing empathy and compassion from the perspective of researchers or clinicians. There has been limited attention to the views of patients. The aim of this presentation is to profile a study that explored examples of empathic/compassionate encounters with healthcare professionals from the perspective of patients and their significant others.
Methods: A survey was distributed via social media inviting potential participants to submit narratives describing encounters with healthcare professionals that they believed exemplified empathic/compassionate care or the antithesis of this. The results were analysed using framework analysis.
Results: A total of 85 participants from Europe, America, and the Pacific described their encounters with nurses, doctors, allied healthcare professionals and multidisciplinary teams. Four themes were identified: (1) Verbal and non-verbal communication conveys empathy and compassion, (2) Clinician attitudes and attributes are powerful in empathic and compassionate communication, (3) Small acts of kindness convey empathy and compassion, and (4) Empathic and compassionate care has an immediate and long-lasting impact on healthcare consumers’ experiences and outcomes.
Conclusion: Given the positive impact of empathy/compassion on people’s physical and psychosocial wellbeing, the results from this study are valuable and shed new light on patients’ views and experiences. The results also provide a deeper understanding of healthcare provider behaviours that exemplify empathic and compassionate healthcare interactions and can be used to inform the education of healthcare providers from all disciplines.

Aim: To determine whether the complexity of current nursing documentation requirements have created unintended consequences that negatively affect patient care. The knowledge provided by this research can be used to better govern nursing documentation requirements and to ensure nursing students' are equipped to conduct genuine patient assessment rather than using assessment tools to screen their patients’ needs.
Methods: An institutional ethnography was conducted to determine how the requirements that determine documentation practices were developed. The first phase, sought to identify whether nurses perceived that the existing documentation requirements negatively affected their delivery of care. Secondly, map the social construct of the institution they worked for in order to determine how and who directs that practice. This was established through a series of interviews, direct observations and mapping of all relevant documents and policies related to patient assessment documentation.
Results: Current documentation requirements have become burdensome, time consuming and interfere with the efficiency of nurses to delivery care. The complexity of requirements and the inability to tailor practice to meet individual patient needs frustrated nurses. The standardised nature of these requirements has resulted in a disproportionate emphasis on documentation compliance, reducing nursing to a task-based screening approach.
Conclusion: Documentation requirements have been poorly coordinated in recent history, resulting in a complex and time-consuming documentation processes. The impact of the existing documentation requirements and the time that nurses spend documenting care is poorly recognised and measured. There is an absence of effective mechanisms to utilise nurses’ feedback to refine the documentation requirements and a disproportionate focus on document compliance rather than assessing the effectiveness of care. It is important to understand the impact of current documentation requirements in order to develop more efficient requirements and improve the efficiency of care delivery. Nurse educators can use this knowledge to help student nurses develop critical thinking skills early in their careers and ensure that they are skilled in conducting genuine assessment of their patient needs.

Aim: Health professional students must successfully complete clinical placements in order to graduate. Student experiences of learning during these placements is not always ideal¹; lack of quality/constructive feedback, inadequate supervision and lack of preparation for the placement hinder learning². It is essential that the quality of clinical learning during the placement is evaluated. An Australian/world first innovation, The National Placement Evaluation Centre, commenced formally evaluating student placements in 2022 for national benchmarking.
Methods: A multi-method multi-phase project. The first phase saw development and psychometric testing of Placement Evaluation Tools (PET) for nursing and midwifery students and for clinical supervisors³. Phase 2 featured development and testing of the NPEC website and education management system to house and report on PET data. Phase 3 was a national trial of the centre and the PET.
Results: By December 2023 more than 16000 student nurses and midwives have contributed evaluations of their clinical learning experience, 36 education providers offering a Bachelor of Nursing and 19 offering Midwifery courses are active members. NPEC members have produced peer reviewed publications about the centre, the PET and associated topics informing quality of nursing clinical learning in Australia.
Conclusion: The work is ongoing. Future plans for NPEC will offer Australia’s first nationally consistent approach to evaluating the quality of healthcare student clinical placements. This presentation includes 2023 outcomes and reports new knowledge and contemporary considerations for innovating healthcare students’ clinical learning education, policy and curricula.
References
1. Luders, E., et al., 2020. Nursing degree students’ clinical placement experiences in Australia: A survey design. NEP, 54, 103112.
2.Cant, R., et al., 2021. What helps, what hinders? Undergraduate nursing students’ perceptions of clinical placements based on a thematic synthesis of literature.Open Nursing, 7:1-20.
3. Cooper, S. et al., 2020. Measuring the quality of nursing clinical placements and the development of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) in a mixed methods co-design project. BMC Nursing,19, 101.

Aims/Background: The School of Nursing and Midwifery's proactive engagement with healthcare providers, and industry stakeholders exemplifies a forward-thinking approach to addressing the evolving needs of the healthcare sector. This innovative partnership model enables access to a wide variety of health care environments and clinical learning experiences for students. The aim of this presentation is to outline results from students’ experiences, and capacity building in the health workforce.
Methods: Across 2023, we used the National Placement Evaluation Centre (NPEC) survey to assess students' experiences of PEP. Complementing the NPEC feedback, the National Student Experience Survey, one of the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) surveys and graduate destination data was used to determine graduate employability across our partnerships.
Results: The results from NPEC substantiate the success of our Partnerships in delivering enriching experiences for students. QILT results indicate a graduate employability rate of 94.1%, surpassing the national average of 89.6%. This success is notably attributed to the representation of the School’s Partnership network in shaping an education that aligns with industry needs.
Conclusion: The School of Nursing and Midwifery plays a pivotal role in cultivating a future-ready healthcare workforce, adept at navigating the complexities of a rapidly transforming healthcare landscape.
Keywords: Partnerships, workforce, student experiences