Purpose: To investigate the differences between self-evaluation results of nursing competency of the two-year nursing staff and other medical staff and nonmedical personnel.
Method: Medical staff version and non-medical personnel version questionnaires were used to survey the nursing competency of second-year nursing staff. A total of 210 subjects were recruited. The evaluators included supervisors, peers, subordinates, external customers and the trainees themselves.
Result: The results showed that the average self-evaluation score of medical care competency was 4.09 ± .38, and the highest score was for information technology, while the lowest score was for the empirical professional facet. The average score of the supervisors was 3.87 ± .48, and the average score of the peers was 4.21 ± .49. The highest score in the five major competencies fell in the improvement of the quality of technology application and the lowest score was for execution of empirical professional tasks. The assessments of the abilities of the two-year nurses and others groups of personnel were significantly different (p<.01). To the non-medical version of the competency assessment, the average score of the subordinate assessment was 4.37 ± .61, and the average score of external customers was 4.51 ± .48. The results of the two assessments did not reach significant differences, indicating that the subordinate and external customers made consistent assessments of the ability of the two-year nurses. Self-assessment, supervisory and sub-general assessment results all differed significantly among service divisions, showing that nursing performance differs in different disciplines. Education level was consistent across subordinate and external customer assessments.
Conclusion: Through a 360-degree evaluation, this study provided immediate feedback from the medical team and external customers and self-assessment by the nurses, so that the new nurses can understand the requirements of nursing competency, and reduce the gap between actual performances. The empirical information provided here can serve as a reference for clinical teachers for the revision of education strategies and course contents.