THE MENTORS

The students had a variety of clinical placements during the two year branch programme related to the specific branch they were following, i.e. adult, mental health or learning disability. All students had placements in acute, community settings and long-term or rehabilitation facilities. In each of the six substantive clinical placements in the branch programme, the students each had at least one mentor per placement. Some placement areas, typically in the community, used a team approach to mentoring so the student had more than one mentor while other placements had discrete areas within it, with each area providing a mentor, e.g. in theatre there are 3 areas where the student will work: anaesthetics, operating room and recovery unit. This meant that each student had at least six mentors and most had considerably more than this minimum.

Table 7.1 on the following page sets out the type of placement undertaken for each student during their branch programme. It also shows the placements where I sampled the mentors for this stage of the study.

The criteria used to select the mentors were:

• Representatives from acute, long term and community care settings • Worked with the student for a substantial placement, i.e. at least 6 weeks • Student had given permission for me to speak to the mentor.

Table 7.1 Branch Placements for students in stage 2. The # sign indicates where a mentor was sampled. Placement 1 Yr 1 Placement 2 Yr 1 Placement 3 Yr 1 Placement 1 Yr 2 Placement 2 Yr 2 Placement 2 Yr 3

Grace Acute Surgical Ward Community District Nursing Team # Acute Medical Ward Operating department and A&E/ paramedics Acute Medical/ Surgical Ward # Postoperative Recovery Unit Molly Orthopaedic Ward - night d u ty# Commences maternity leave - - - - Shaun Community Mental Health Team # Acute Admissions Ward Elderly Mentally III Long Stay Unit

Psychiatric Crisis Intervention Team # Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit Community Clinic Steve Learning Disability - residential home # Mixed Learning Disability and Mental Health Unit

Secure Unit Challenging Behaviour Unit (hospital base) Community Learning Disability Team # Assessment and Treatment Unit (hospital base)

All interviews with the mentors occurred in their place of work at a time of their choosing. All the mentors were female, ranging in experience (qualified

approximately a year to over 20 years experience) and age (early twenties to early fifties). One of Grace’s mentors, who worked in the community district nursing team, was dyslexic herself and had worked with Grace during her community placement in the Common Foundation Programme as well as the branch

community placement. All mentors were provided with an information sheet about the study and their consent was sought prior to the interview.

None of the mentors refused to be interviewed, however, two of the mentors were initially uneasy as to why they had been selected. This unease passed once the purpose of the study and process for data collection was explained and most appeared to be pleased to be asked their views. One of Shaun’s mentors initially thought that because she had a disagreement with him during his placement, I was there on behalf of the School to ‘check up’ on her. Once I explained that this was not the case, she said on reflection that she was flattered that he had chosen her and that it showed they had “mutual respect for one another”, even though they had fallen out on one occasion.

Both of Shaun’s mentors interviewed for this study knew Shaun before he was placed with them as a student nurse, through his role as a mental health support worker. In the case of the mentor from the Community Psychiatric Team she knew Shaun both professionally and personally and described herself as his friend. Shaun had completed an observation placement with this mentor in the Common Foundation Programme as well as the placement in the branch. This meant that the relationship Shaun had with some mentors, including both mentors in this study, was different to the other students’ relationships, as it was built on established relationships or knowledge about Shaun.

7.4 DATA MANAGEMENT

The notes from the interviews with the students and mentors plus observations of behaviour by the students carrying out specific tasks in practice, e.g. using a palm pilot to write client assessment notes, reading prescription sheets and

Format). All interviewees were invited to verify the accuracy of the information recorded in the transcripts and amendments were made where necessary. Two of the mentors declined the invitation to confirm the accuracy. All interviewees

received a copy of the final version of the respective transcript.

The NVIVO software package was used to perform the thematic analysis in stage two. NVIVO allows the researcher to set up categories or ‘nodes’ in advance of reviewing the data, which is helpful if it is anticipated that specific themes are likely to emerge. Further identification of nodes and refinement of the node tree

structure can then be done as the data are reviewed. Therefore, the themes identified in stage one of the study were set up as an initial ‘node tree’, as a template for the thematic analysis of the data in stage two.

The predetermined nodes were applied to the data gathered in stage two, and identification of additional nodes was made where new themes emerged from the data. A description of how each node referred to the text was set out to ensure that the nodes were consistently applied (see table 7.2). My supervisor

independently coded all of the data gathered from one student (Shaun) and from the interviews with the seven mentors. Any area of discrepancy between my coding and that of my supervisor was discussed and the description for application of the node adjusted. From the outset there was a high degree of consistency in the application of the predetermined nodes and agreement of the new nodes emerging from the data.

At the end of the coding process, I removed from the node tree any of the predetermined nodes (identified in stage one), which did not have any data allocated to them in stage two. These included:

• Selection process

• Screening

• Theory versus practice support (this was the fear teaching staff had that students were being enabled to pass the course and would not be able to function once support was removed on qualification)

• Demand/Increasing student numbers

The first two of the above nodes were particularly relevant to the admissions lecturers interviewed in stage one. The third, fourth and fifth nodes related to a small number of comments made by the teaching and support staff in stage one; the mentors and students did not mention these areas in stage two. The final node tree for stage two is described in figure 7.1. on the following page.

Figure 7.1 Final node tree for stage two. Main nodes in bold emerged in stage one, main nodes in green emerged from the data in stage two.