Conectar
To understand the role of simulation in ensuring the development of the competencies expected by newly graduated register nurses (NGRNs) from the work initiation up to 5 months of transition.
Mixed-method study design. A longitudinal phase employing the Nurse Competence Scale (NCS, from 0 to 100, excellent) to assess the perceived competencies among NGRNs (N = 151) at three time points (first day of work up to fifth month); followed by a qualitative phase involving four focus groups of preceptors (N = 16) to explore the potential role of simulation in the NGRNs' working transition. Integration was performed at findings level, using the building procedures and joint displaying the results.
During the different time periods, variations emerged in the NCS scores from 64.41 out of 100 in the first day of work to 61.82 after 15 days, reaching 69.25 and 73.21 at 3 and 5 months. Nine potentialities have been identified as having simulation supporting NGRNs during their transition to independent practice. Simulation may contribute to develop competencies in some competence domains (diagnostic function, managing situation, therapeutic intervention, quality assurance and working role) while not in others (helping role and teaching–coaching).
Early interventions, through integration of simulation sessions into strategies offered at the unit's level may be useful to ensure an effective working transition.
Problem the study addresses: Challenges in transition from education to working settings are increasing given the difficulties of the units in providing time and support to NGRNs. Main findings: Competencies of NGRNs' are fluctuant in the five first months of work, and sub-optimal in certain domains. Simulation may support the full development of most competencies. Impact on research: Healthcare organisations can support NGRNs to ensure smoother transitions by integrating simulations in their strategy.
This study was conducted following the Good Reporting of a Mixed-Methods Study.
Only healthcare professionals were involved.
The production of science is characterized by socio-political and technological forces that influence what knowledge is produced. In this context, empty reviews have received little attention, with debate ranging over the pros and cons of their publication. However, their dissemination may improve the ability to recognize and prioritize research gaps. The main aim of the study was to map empty reviews published in nursing science.
A scoping review in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley, Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework database in April 2025. Four databases and grey literature were searched; there were eligible scoping or systematic reviews defined as “empty” in the field of nursing. A modified framework of Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations was used to summarize the extracted data.
Fifteen empty reviews were identified. In terms of Patterns, the empty reviews were mainly published in high-income countries over the last 10 years and related to clinical practise and outcomes, education and training, organizational and human resources, and approaches to maternity care, mental health, and nursing education. In general, reporting guidelines were used, while funding was not documented. In terms of Recommendations, more primary studies, the development of tools and the strategic use of empty reviews to inform the funding and research agenda were suggested.
Empty reviews in nursing may indicate neglected or emerging areas that can help orient research agendas to ensure equity-oriented priorities and reduce the marginalization of under-investigated topics. Recognizing empty reviews as legitimate scholarly outputs supports transparent mapping of knowledge gaps, helping funders, institutions, and research programs direct resources to under-investigated areas. Dedicated registries that publicly report empty reviews, establish minimum reporting standards, and require explicit keywords in titles and abstracts would improve transparency and accessibility, and stimulate targeted primary research that can turn “empty” areas into active inquiry. From this perspective, empty reviews may attract research investment rather than be seen as methodological failures.
FreshRSS 