Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, and Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2 Eye Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Khatam‑al‑Anbia Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3 Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medical Sciences Education, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bachelor’s program in surgical technology is a major of medical science, in Iran.
Learning and adapting to different skills and roles in the operation room environment is a daunting
work. The complexity of this environment needs to bring together researchers in this field to work
on different aspects. The aim of this qualitative study was comprehensively understanding of clinical
teaching process in surgical technology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted based on the qualitative research
design of the grounded theory approach (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). This study was conducted at
schools of nursing and paramedical in five academic settings. Study participants in the present study
include 14 students, seven educational instructors, six staff of operation room, one dean of faculty,
three surgeon assistants, one instructor, and four head nurses of operation room. A semi‑structured
interview method and a memo were conducted using theoretical and purposive sampling. Constant
comparative analysis was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: Findings showed that the nonacceptance of student by surgical team was identified as
the main concern of the students. The “gaining clinical competence and approval” was found the
central process (strategy) in response to main concern of clinical education, and the “interactive and
dynamic nature of the operation room environment” was defined as the context for this major concern.
Strategies that students used to address this concern included individual efforts to overcome distrust,
learning in the shadow of surgical team members, and seeking help and support of the instructor.
CONCLUSION: Accepting the students of surgical technology as a member of surgical team creates
opportunities for students to learn, gain experience, and enhance their professional qualifications
and abilities.
Keywords
Science in Surgical Technology. General profile, program, course
syllabus and evaluation method. In: Program. Second edition.
Islamic Republic of Iran Ministry of Health and Medical Education
High Council of Medical Sciences Programming. Ministry of
Heath of Iran; 2015.
2. Moattari M, Ramazani S. Nursing students’ perspective toward
clinical learning environment. Iran J Med Educ 2009; 9:137‑45.
3. Zardosht R, Karimi Moonaghi H. Just trust me: The essential
demand of operating room students. Future Med Educ J 2018; 8:3‑5.
4. Lotfi M, Zamanzadeh V, Sheikhalipour Z. Effect of peer clinical
teaching method on the education of operating room students.
Nurs Educ 2012;1:78‑83.
5. Karimi Moonaghi H, Zardosht R, Razavi ME, Ahmady S.
Perceived challenges by the Iranian Baccalaureate Surgical
Technology students in their clinical education: A qualitative
study. Int Peer Rev Open Access J Rapid Publ 2017;10:542‑50.[Doi:
10.21786/bbrc/10.3/31].
6. Lingard L, Reznick R, Espin S, Regehr G, DeVito I. Team
communications in the operating room: Talk patterns, sites of
tension, and implications for novices. Acad Med 2002;77:232‑7.
7. Silén‑Lipponen M, Tossavainen K, Turunen H, Smith A. Learning
about teamwork in operating room clinical placement. Br J Nurs
2004; 13:244‑53.
8. Silen‑Lipponen M, Tossavainen K, Turunen H, Smith A,
Burdett K. Teamwork in Operating Room Nursing as Experienced
by Finnish, British and American Nurses. Diversity in Health and
Social Care; 2004. p. 1.
9. Zardosht R, Karimi Moonaghi H, Razavi ME, Ahmady S. The
challenges of clinical education in a baccalaureate surgical
technology students in Iran: A qualitative study. Electron
Physician 2018; 10:6406‑16.
10. Farnia F, Abaszadeh A, Borhani F. Barriers to developing the
nurse‑patient relationship in operation room: A qualitative
content analysis. J Qual Res Health Sci 2013; 2:76‑89.
11. Skoczylas LC, Littleton EB, Kanter SL, Sutkin G. Teaching
techniques in the operating room: The importance of perceptual
motor teaching. Acad Med 2012;87:364‑71.
12. Abedi HA, Heidari A, Salsali M. New graduate nurses’
experiences of their professional readiness during transition to
professional roles. Iran J Med Educ 2004; 4:69‑78.
13. Bahrami Babaheidary T, Sadati L, Golchini E, Mahmudi E.
Assessment of clinical education in the Alborz University of
Medical Sciences from surgical technology and anesthesiology
students’ point of view. Alborz Univ Med J 2012; 1:143‑50.
14. Dehghani H, Dehghani K, Fallahzadeh H. The educational
problems of clinical field training based on nursing teachers
and last year nursing students view points. Iran J Med Educ
2005;5:24‑33.
15. Delaram M. Clinical Education from nursing students’ point of
view in Shahrekord University of Medical Science. Iran J Med
Educ 2009; 6:129‑35.
16. Ghorbanian N, Abdollahzadeh Mahlani F, Kazemi Haki B.
Effective factors on clinical education quality anesthesiology and
operating room students view. Educ Strateg Med Sci 2014;6:235‑9.
17. Roshanzadeh M, Toleyat M, Mohammadi S. Clinical evaluation
tool for operating room students: Development and measurement
of reliability and validity. Iran J Med Educ 2015;15: 98‑110.
18. Fakhr‑Movahedi A, Salsali M, Negarandeh R, Rahnavard Z.
Exploring contextual factors of the nurse‑patient relationship:
A qualitative study. Koomesh 2011; 1:23‑34.
19. Glaser B. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. USA: Routledge; 2017.
20. Charmaz K, Belgrave LL. Grounded Theory. India. Wiley Online
Library; 2007.
21. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand
Oaks California. 2008.
22. Cutcliffe JR. Methodological issues in grounded theory. J Adv
Nurs 2000;31:1476‑84.
23. Holloway I, Galvin K. Qualitative Research in Nursing and
Healthcare. USA and UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
24. Peyrovi H, Oskouie F. Qualitative Research in Nursing. Tehran:
Iran University of Medical Sciences & Health Services; 2005.
p. 376.
25. Lee J. The Empowerment Approach to Social Work Practice:
Building the Beloverd Community. New York: Columbia
University Press; 2001.
26. Hartzell JD. Adult learning theory in medical education. Am J
Med 2007;120:e11.
27. Bastable SB. Nurse as Educator: Principles of Teaching and
Learning for Nursing Practice. New york. Jones and Bartlett
Learning; 2003.
28. Memarian R, Salsali M, Vanaki Z, Ahmadi F, Hajizadeh E. Factors affecting the process of obtaining clinical competency. J Zanjan
Univ Med Sci 2006; 14:40‑9.
29. Henderson A, Twentyman M, Heel A, Lloyd B. Students’
perception of the psycho‑social clinical learning environment:
An evaluation of placement models. Nurse Educ Today 2006;
26:564‑71.
30. Newton JM, Jolly BC, Ockerby CM, Cross WM. Clinical learning
environment inventory: Factor analysis. J Adv Nurs 2010;
66:1371‑81.
31. Tazakori Z, Mehri S, Mobaraki N, Dadashi L, Ahmadi Y, Shokri F,
et al. Factors affecting on quality of clinical education perspective
of operation room students. J Health Care 2015; 17:128‑36.
32. Riley R, Manias E. Foucault could have been an operating room
nurse. J Adv Nurs 2002; 39:316‑24.
)