Approaches used to enhance transition and retention for newly qualified nurses (NQNs): a rapid evidence assessment

Background

The ageing of the nursing workforce is well documented (Buchan 1999; Graham and Duffield 2010; Kwok et al 2016; Buchan et al 2015), as is high staff turnover linked to stress, workload and burnout (Heinen et al 2013; Halter et al 2017). This has led to renewed interest on recruitment and retention of the existing nursing workforce. Strategic intervention is considered key to ensuring workforce stability and sustainability and this has led to many policies to focus employers on workforce retention (Health Education England 2015; The Health Foundation 2017; House of Commons Health Committee 2018; NHS Education for Scotland (NES) 2019).

Newly qualified nurses (NQNs) are one group considered at risk of leaving the workforce early. Reliable measures of this phenomenon internationally are not available as figures relating to this group of nurses tend to be conflated with turnover reports. Furthermore, the issue is clouded by semantics (Drennan and Ross 2019, Buchan et al 2018). The phrase ‘turnover’ is often used interchangeably with ‘attrition’ (Buchan et al 2018); a nurse leaving an organization might not necessarily leave the profession, they may move between jobs within the same organization. Estimated levels of attrition amongst NQNs vary. Up to 50% of nurses leave their first position within 1 year due to stressors in the work-place (Canada; Winfield et al 2009) and graduate nurse attrition rates of between 30 - 50% are reported in the USA (Phillips et al(2017). NQNs are thus a particularly vulnerable group and the challenge of transition from student to autonomous practitioner has been well documented in the literature and described as ‘reality shock’ (Kramer 1974) and ‘transition shock’ (Duchscher 2009).

Preceptorship is commonplace in many NHS trusts and private hospital settings in the UK and other schemes including mentorship and clinical supervision are considered fundamental to facilitating transition and developing safe and competent accountable practitioners (NMC 2006; Department of Health 2010). The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) recommended: all ‘new registrants’ have a period of preceptorship on commencing employment, this applies to those newly admitted to the NMC Register who have completed a pre-registration programme in the UK for the first time, or have subsequently entered a new part of the register. New registrants also include those newly admitted to the register from other European Economic Area States and other nation states (NMC 2006:1).

NMC guidance recommends a formal period of preceptorship lasting “about four months but this may vary according to individual need and local circumstances” (NMC 2006: 2) and this is considered a ‘model of enhancement’ (NMC 2006; DH 2010) central to the continued professional development of the nurse rather than a framework to address educational deficits. The introduction of the UK Preceptorship Framework for Newly Registered Nurses, Midwives and Allied Health Professionals (Department of Health 2010) sought to reinvigorate preceptorship in the NHS and provide a commitment to staff and improved patient care. The DH guidance (2010) said that four months advocated in the NMC Guidance (2006) was insufficient.

Preceptorship may ‘include classroom teaching and attainment of role-specific competencies, however the most important element is the individualised support provided in practice by the preceptor ‘ (CAPITAL Nurse 2017:4). In the UK, whilst the preceptorship model is widely supported, the integrity of this approach is persistently compromised by lack of preceptors (Deasy et al. 2011; Whitehead et al. 2013, Adams and Gillman 2016). Workload pressures and staffing deficits further undermine opportunities for preceptorship support in NHS Settings (Lewis and McGowan 2015) and the existence of preceptorship frameworks is insufficient to ensure that this support is delivered in practice. Whilst preceptorship occurs post registration in the UK, this is provided for final year student nurses in the US and Canada (Robinson and Griffiths 2009; Currie and Watts 2012; Cubit and Ryan, 2011). Although there is agreement that such approaches have a positive impact on job satisfaction and intention to stay (Rush et al. 2013; Phillips et al. 2013; 2014), there is little evidence of impact on NQN retention figures in the UK, nor on patient outcomes (Robinson and Griffiths 2009).

Research focusing on NQNs and transition has focused on supportive frameworks, professional socialisation, learning development and competency (Adams and Gillman, 2016, Rejon and Watts 2014, Dinmohammadi et al 2013) which feature in policy guidance (Department of Health 2010) and previous reviews of transition experiences (Higgins et al. 2010; Rush et al. 2013; Whitehead et al. 2013; Murray-Parahi et al. 2016). Whitehead et al. (2013) were concerned with preceptorship and preceptors, whereas Rush et al. (2013) and Adams and Gillman (2016) explored different types of transition support. The link with retention is inferred or assumed rather than made explicit in the review criteria. Consequently, this review sought to identify robust primary research about transition and retention of NQNs.

Methodology

A rapid evidence assessment (REA) is ‘a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner’ (Tricco 2015:2). The need to provide evidence-based recommendations in a time and resources efficiently has driven the development and widespread application of REAs (Varker et al 2015, Khangura et al 2012). Whilst systematic reviews are considered the ‘gold standard’ of knowledge synthesis and have become synonymous with ‘Cochrane Reviews ‘, the method is not without its drawbacks as these can be labour and time intensive and focused on a narrow set of research questions (Khangura et al 2012). REA methodologies comply with the rigour of the systematic review approach but in a shorter time with fewer questions (Thomas et al. 2013, Government Social Research Service (GSR) 2013).

Our research questions were:

• What approaches are used to enhance the transition of newly qualified nurses?

• What approaches are used to enhance retention of newly qualified nurses?

• What is the strength of the evidence for specific approaches to nurse transition and retention?

There is diversity within the literature about the length of time a NQN can still be considered a NQN or has achieved ‘competent status’ according to Benner (1984). For this review the term NQN is used throughout and defined as 12 months or less. This is consistent with earlier research exploring the stages of transition (Dearmun 2000, Evans 2001, Duchscher 2008, Andersson and Edberg 2010).

Search Strategy

The search was undertaken using: specific database searching; and secondary searching of relevant websites. Electronic databases (CINAHL complete, Academic search premier, Open Grey, ERIC* (Education), Web of Science--Social Science Citation Index and PubMed) were searched during February 2018. The following search terms were used:

Newly qualified nurse OR Newly registered nurse OR New nurse OR Student Nurse OR Nursing Student

AND

Transition OR Retention OR attrition OR Turnover OR stability Truncation, for example Nurs* for nurses, nurse and nursing and Boolean operators was also used to maximise search results. An inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied to focus the search approach and can be seen in Table 1.

Papers were included if participants were NQNs, were primary research studies (defined as ‘empirically observe a phenomenon at first hand, collecting, analysing or presenting ‘raw’ data ‘) or secondary research studies, (defined as studies that: ‘interrogate primary research studies, summarising and interrogating their data and findings ‘) (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rapid-evidence-assessments; accessed 9 August 2019). Papers were included if published in English and between 2008–2018. The rationale for disregarding papers published before 2008 was that this date marked the publication of Duchscher ‘s (2008) seminal work on ‘transition shock ‘. Where papers examined NQN over a longer timeframe, they were only included if data were available to differentiate between those up to 12-month NQN and those beyond 12 months.

Classification of Papers

Full texts were retrieved and classified using the RAE tool and template (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rapid-evidence-assessments; accessed 9 August 2019). Each member of the team (HG, DB, RW & JW) was randomly allocated papers for this preliminary classification. Papers were excluded at this stage if they did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Quality Assessment

Each member of the team undertook quality assessment of the papers using an appropriate appraisal tool. CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) appraisal tools were used to assess qualitative papers, systematic reviews and RCTs. The MMAT (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) was used to assess mixed methods papers, and a customised tool based on Kelley et al. (2003) was use for evaluating surveys. Using a series of questions to prompt the reader to consider if the study was valid, what the results of the study were and if the results were useful these tools ensured a systematic assessment of the trustworthiness, relevance and results of published papers (https://casp-uk.net/). To ensure consistency, a subsample of the papers was quality assessed at this stage by another member of the team. Disagreement was resolved via discussion or involvement of a third team member.

Final assessment and scoring

A single descriptor of quality: high; medium; or low was assigned to each output based on whether or not the output was low, medium or high in the range of scores afforded by the quality assessment instrument.

Data Extraction

Key details of the included papers are summarised in Table 2.

Experimental or quasi experimental studies / RCT ‘s

All experimental studies (Lee et al 2009; Meyer et al 2017; Tseng et al 2013) were pre-post intervention so most CASP criteria did not apply and none had blinding of participants. Lee et al (2009) showed a reduction in turnover as a result of a preceptorship programme and provided a cost analysis and the effect on medication errors; both were reduced. Meyer et al (2017) and Tseng at al (2013) both showed reduced job changing in the intervention group which had experienced a revised curriculum before qualifying (Meyer et al 2017) and a practicum at the end of their courses was based on collaboration between their schools and their hospitals and a jointly developed programme (Tseng et al 2013).

Quantitative studies

Quantitative studies predominantly used a survey design. They described a range of outcomes related to the study of the successful employment of NQNs and all were proxies for retention, including: Adaptation (Ashton 2015); Organisational commitment (Bratt 2012); Confidence and competence (Deasy 2011); Satisfaction with practice; Empowerment and competence (Kuokannen 2016); Predictors of successful transition (Phillips 2012); Effect of a programme of transition (Steen 2011); and Stressors and intention to quit (Yeh 2009).

All studies reported at least one positive outcome related to the aim(s) of the study, and from the highest quality studies it appears that effective strategies with a positive influence on proxy measures of successful NQN employment include: having a formal orientation period (Ashton 2015); the initial placement (Bratt 2012; Hussien 2016); satisfaction with the unit and clinical supervision (Hussein 2016); empowerment (Kuokannen 2016); pre-registration employment (Phillips 2012); and higher stress and not having had previous experience in the unit (Yeh 2009). The study by Deasy (2011) did not investigate the effect of independent variables and made no comparison with reference values of the levels of proxy measurement they used: confidence and competence (Deasy 2011).

Systematic Reviews

Labrague & McEnroe-Petitte (2017) explored the experiences of new nurses during transition, and Ke et al, (2017), Oosterbroek (2017) and Ward & McComb (2017) focused on preceptorship. Olejniczak et al (2010) provided an overview of the evidence base linked to simulation as an orientation strategy for NQNs, whilst three reviews (Edwards et al (2015), Gardiner & Sheen (2016) and Pasila et al (2017) examined broader supportive approaches.

Where experiences of NQNs were discussed as part of a review, it was clear that transition from student to Registered Nurse is stressful (Labrague & McEnroe-Petitte, 2017; Gardiner & Sheen, 2016). Labrague & McEnroe-Petitte (2017) identified the main causes of stress were workload and a perceived lack of competence.

The need for a supportive environment providing NQNs with learning opportunities and constructive feedback was identified by Gardiner & Sheen (2016), Oosterbroek (2017) and Olejniczak (2010) who also found simulation could play an role in orientating new nurses, allowing for learning in a safe environment.

Benefits of preceptorship were discussed by Ward & McComb (2017), Ke et al (2017), Oosterbroek (2017), and Pasila et al (2017). Edwards et al (2015) explored the impact of a broader range of interventions: preceptorship; mentorship; and internship. These included the support offered by an experienced member of staff, and the provision of teaching and feedback. Only Ke et al (2017) evaluated specific approaches to preceptorship and reached firm conclusions that a fixed preceptor/preceptee model with regular one-to-one working was the most prevalent approach; preceptorship significantly increased NQNs competence, though no firm conclusions could be reached regarding impact on retention.

Qualitative studies

methods included participant observation; interviews (both unstructured and semi-structured) and focus groups. The studies by Chappy et al (2010) and Penphase (2012) used text-based (qualitative) responses from a larger survey and Walton et al (2018) analysed ‘reflective essays’ written. Samples varied from four (Bridges et al 2013) to 94 (Walker et al 2013). Penphase (2012) reported 460 however these were text-based comments in a larger survey.

Analysis was generally well described with most frequently used Thematic analysis (n=7) and Content analysis (n=7). The constant comparative method, associated with grounded theory was also used (Guay et al 2016; Gerrish 2000; LeeAnna Spiva et al 2013). Linder (2009) and Watt and Pascoe (2013) did not give a specific name to their approach, however within each paper the process of data analysis was sufficiently described. Penprase (2012) provided detailed findings without indication of the method used or how data were selected.

Some studies looked at transition experiences then characterised these experiences into proposed ‘stages’ (Anderson and Edberg 2010 – 2 stages, Gerrish 2000 – 3 stages) i.e. driving theory, or the characteristics of the phenomena of the NQN (Moore and Cagle 2012). Whereas Brandt et al (2017) used existing frameworks for transition and focused on experiences that characterised particular stages (e.g. preparation or pre-transition, orientation/induction, post-orientation and being a NQN). Allan et al (2018), Harrison-White (2013), Lewis and McGowan (2015), LeeSpiva et al (2013) and Ya-Ting Ke and Min-Tao Hsu (2015) focused mainly on preceptorship

Support featured to some extent in all the papers; the importance of positive and supporting experiences/environments (Chandler 2012) and the impact on NQNs of being unsupported during this period (Hollywood 2011 ‘finding your own way ‘, Gerrish 2000 ‘fumbling along ‘). Key to ‘positive’ support experiences was acceptance by colleagues/the team and becoming a team member (Anderson and Edberg 2010, Brandt et al 2017, Moore and Cagle 2012).

Educational preparation for transition to practice featured in Brandt et al (2017), Chappy et al (2010), Penphrase (2012) and transition shock (a key feature of a much earlier study in the field) featured only in Hollywood (2011). Papers that explored becoming an accountable practitioner focused on growth and maturation during the later stages of transition (Anderson and Edberg 2010, Brandt et al 2017, Bridges et al 2013, Gerrish 2000). Satisfaction with current role in nursing was only explored by Penphase (2012).

Mixed Methods studies

Two papers which reported on different aspects of the same study used mixed methods. The study was an evaluation of a preceptorship programme for NQNs in one NHS Trust. Marks-Maran (2013) presented data from the perspective of the preceptees and Muir et al (2013) presented data from the perspective of the preceptors. Quantitative data were collected using questionnaires and qualitative data were collected using reflective journals, reflective recordings and interviews. Marks-Maran et al (2013) found that preceptorship was highly valued by most preceptees (85%) with engagement in the programme perceived as having a positive impact on stress levels, role and personal and developing professional skills. Muir et al (2013) found the preceptorship progamme was viewed positively by preceptors and impacted positively on development of preceptees and development of preceptors themselves. The preceptorship programme was also viewed as of long-term benefit to the organisation.

What approaches are used to enhance the transition of newly qualified nurses?

The benefits of preceptorship were discussed in a number of papers including systematic reviews by Ward & McComb (2017), Ke et al (2017), Oosterbroek (2017), and Pasila et al (2017). However, only one paper (Ke et al 2017) evaluated specific approaches to preceptorship. The authors concluded that a fixed preceptor/preceptee model with regular one-to-one working was the most prevalent approach and this model of preceptorship significantly increased NQNs competence.

A recurrent theme within the papers, which may be considered a less formal approach to supporting transition, was the existence of a supportive organisational culture which may include being accepted by team and, or peers, effective communication within and across an organisation and access to and availability of informal support (peers, friends, the wider MDT).

Although firm conclusions on the impact of interventions were hindered by methodological weaknesses of the primary research in the review by Edwards et al (2015), most interventions resulted in some level of benefit related to competence, confidence and job satisfaction. However, this seemed less dependent on the type of intervention and was more broadly related to organisations demonstrating their commitment to supporting NQNs. Simply, the fact that something was being done was more important than the specific nature of the intervention.The only RCT paper that explored transition was Meyer and this related to curriculum changes.

What approaches are used to enhance retention of newly qualified nurses?

Five of the studies directly addressed retention. Lee et al (2009) showed a reduction in turnover as a result of a preceptorship programme and provided a cost analysis of the effect on medication errors, both of which were reduced. Yeh et al (2009) found that higher levels of stress influenced intention to quit and Ya Ting et al (2015) found that having a good relationship with a preceptor positively influenced NQNs intention to stay. Two further papers McDonald and Ward Smith (2012) and Ke (2017), both literature reviews, looked at retention. McDonald and Ward-Smith (2012) concluded that longer interventions increased retention however the paper was evaluated as being of low quality so findings should be treated with some caution. Ke (2017) failed to reach any firm conclusions regarding the impact on retention rates of various models of preceptorship.

However, in most studies, retention was more likely to be inferred where transition experiences were positive. Thus, if we are to assume that positive transition experiences impact positively on retention rates the solution to retaining NQNs might be found in the evidence for what constitutes a good NQN transition programme. The qualitative studies found that indicators of successful transition (and implied enhanced retention) included formal organisational enablers; induction, orientation and supporting framework (mentoring, preceptorship, clinical coach), supportive organisational culture (acceptance by team/peers, effective communication within and across organisation) and access to and availability of informal support (peers, friends, the wider MDT/units). These enablers were seen as increasing job satisfaction (and impact on retention) and vice versa. Quantitative studies suggest that effective strategies that have a positive influence on proxy measures of successful NQN employment include: having a formal orientation period (Ashton 2015); the initial placement (Bratt 2012; Hussien 2016); satisfaction with the unit and clinical supervision (Hussein 2016); empowerment (Kuokannen 2016); pre-registration employment (Phillips 2012); and higher stress and not having had previous experience in the unit (Yeh 2009).

What is the strength of the evidence for specific approaches to nurse transition and retention?

The quality of papers across the five methodological categories was variable. The quality of the three experimental studies (Lee et al 2009; Meyer et al 2017; Tseng et al 2013) retrieved was low or moderate with a particular weakness being a lack of blinding of participants. The quality of the quantitative studies included in the review varied from low (Deasy et al 2011) to high with only one study (Bratt & Feltzer 2012) rated medium. Deasy et al (2011) did not define the design of their study and Bratt and Feltzer (2012) provided no information about response rate to their survey. The remaining five studies using survey methods provided strong evidence, on the basis of the evaluation instrument designed for this study.

Overall, the standard of systematic reviews could have been higher. Only three of nine studies provided the necessary level of insight into search methodologies, critical appraisal and analysis of evidence. Though all systematic reviews used established databases as part of their literature search, the detail provided of methods, inclusion criteria and search terms varied substantially. Papers such as Edwards et al (2015), Ke et al (2017) and Pasila et al (2017) – which were judged to be the highest quality - provided a flowchart summary of the literature selection process in line with PRISMA (or similar) guidelines. In other papers, the account of the literature search was lacking in detail, thereby reducing confidence in whether all relevant evidence was identified. Edwards et al (2015), Ke et al (2017) and Pasila et al (2017) provided insight into the critical appraisal of selected papers, such as the use of Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Some other papers highlighted methodological issues in the selected papers (though they provided no details on how these conclusions were reached). The lowest quality papers – Oosterbroek (2017); Ward & McComb (2017); Olejniczak (2010) – offered no discussion of how literature was appraised, analysed or quality assured. Some of the reviews included quantitative research, but none of them performed meta-analysis of data. All eight reviews offered a narrative of papers, with some identifying core themes and/or articulating the commonalities and areas of disagreement within the selected papers.

Similarly, there was considerable variation in the qualitative studies regarding reporting styles with quality ranging from very poor (met few of the CASP criteria) to moderate to high (met at least half or most of the CASP criteria). No studies met all the CASP criteria. The higher-quality papers were Ebrahimi (2016), Chappy et al (2010) Gerrish (2000), Hollywood (2011), Ya-Ting Ke and Min-Tao Hsu (2015), Ebrahimi et al (2016) and Linder (2009) and the lower quality studies were by Penprase (2012), Bridges et al (2013), Allen et al (2018) and Harrison-White (2013). The relationship between the researcher and participant and impact of potential bias and influence – key to qualitative methodologies was the most under-reported item across all the studies, followed by rationale for study design.

Both mixed methods studies were evaluated as being of good quality, scoring 75% (three out of four stars) using the MMAT. However, both papers failed to report on how the findings relate to the researchers’ influence and on the limitations of integrating qualitative and quantitative data both of which are methodological quality criteria within the MMAT.