临床护理专家能力评价方法的研究

Research on Appraisal Methods for Clinical Nurse Specialists

目的确定临床护理专家(CNS)评价标准,为护理管理者选拔、培养、聘任CNS提供依据,为护士发展自己的职业生涯提供参考。方法采用CNS综合评价指标体系,包括定性能力评价(学识水平、业务能力、态度/价值观)和定量能力评价(工作业绩、其他)。定性能力评价中为减少偏倚,对113名CNS培养对象(自评组)相关能力进行综合评价,同时对与其工作≥3年的医生(医评组)及护士(护评组)各113名采用相同的调查问卷进行调查。定量能力评价主要采用Delphi专家咨询法确定其子条目的评分细则,再进行评价。结果定性能力自评组学识水平、业务能力、态度/价值观总分为15.65±1.74、16.33±2.03、18.48±1.69,显著低于他评组(均P<0.01);学历、技术职称、行政职务对评分无显著影响(均P>0.05)。定量能力中工作业绩、其他总分为14.07±1.66、9.55±1.55;除学历外,不同技术职称、行政职务CNS培养对象定量能力评分比较,差异无显著性意义(均P>0.05)。加权后定性能力评分(64.39±4.35)分,定量能力(16.54±1.66)分,总分(80.93±5.25)分。结论CNS能力评价宜用自评和他评相结合的方法,综合能力评分≥74.47分者可作为CNS培养对象,护理管理者不必特别强调学历、技术职称、行政职务,需重视CNS培养对象外语水平和科研能力的提高。

Objective To determine appraisal criteria for clinical nurse specialists （CNS） and provide data for supervisors in promoting, training and engaging CNS as well as reference for nurses to develop their career. Methods A comprehensive appraisal indicator system, which included qualitative appraisal （knowledge level, professional proficiency, attitude/values） and quantitative appraisal （work performance, other items）, was used to evaluate 113 CNS candidates （self-evaluation group）. To reduce deviation in qualitative appraisal, 113 doctors （doctor-evaluation group） and 113 nurses （nurse-evaluation group） working with the CNS candidates for more than 3 years were investigated with the same questionnaire. And in quantitative appraisal, Delphi method was applied to determine the rating rules for subitems before evaluating. Results The scores of knowledge level, professional proficiency and attitude/values in qualitative appraisal of the self-evaluation group were 15.65±1.74,16.33±2.03,18.48±1.69 respectively, which were significantly lower than the scores of the doctor-evaluation group and nurse-evaluation group （P〈0. 01 for all）. The scores of self-evaluation group showed no significant correlation with academic degrees, technical titles and administrative posts （P〉0.05 for all）. The scores of work performance and other items in quantitative appraisal came out as 14.07± 1.66 and 9.55± 1.55 respectively. Except for academic degrees, the scores with different technical titles and administrative posts showed no significant differences （P〉0.05 for all）. The weighted scores of qualitative appraisal were 64.39±4.35, the scores of quantitative appraisal were 16.54±1.66, and total scores were 80.93±5.25. Conclusion Appraisal of CNS should be combined with evaluation and self-evaluation. The scores of comprehensive appraisal of CNS candidates should be greater than or equal to 74.47. Academic degrees, technical titles, or administrative posts were not necessary for supervisors. Considerable emphasis should be placed on developing the CNS＇s foreign language and scientific research skills.