Qualitative feedback

Additional written comments were invited in a free text section of the

questionnaire. In this case, the purpose of inviting qualitative feedback was to add any factors that were particular to the participants and might not have appeared in the literature. Participants made 21 written responses covering a variety of topics. Their comments achieved the intended purpose and further, began to illustrate what it meant to be a PDRP participant. Four topics were identified as important to this small group. Free text responses were analysed using the inductive approach described by Braun and Clarke (2006). Themes are reported below, linked briefly to demographic

126 variables. Miscellaneous individual comments are also reported because of the unique perspectives they provided.

4.6.1 The aging workforce

Insights into the issues facing older PDRP participants were provided by four respondents. Respondent 66 identified that she was in the over 50 age group and that she defined PDRP as being of little benefit because it would not help professionally when she was expecting to retire within a few years. Similarly, participants 33 and 28 who were also in the over 50 age group, felt that they too were coming to the end of their careers and would not be participating. These comments were echoed by

respondent 38, a nurse in the same age group who had previously completed PDRP but reflected,

I found it so hard to complete and I am so close to retirement now I'm not going to bother.

It appeared that reasons to complete PDRP were less compelling to older members of staff. Furthermore, there was a hint that for respondent 66 at least, the purposes of PDRP were disconnected from their professional or employment obligations.

4.6.2 Time

Although ‘time available for completion of requirements’ had been included as an attitude response in the survey, eight participants gave additional commentary on ‘time’. It was clear that different contexts and definitions of time existed within the group. Three participants defined time as ‘off duty’ or ‘personal time’. Here, they identified it was difficult to find time to complete a portfolio at home. Two participants did not elaborate on reasons why this was so, but respondent 82 showed the impact that time for PDRP completion had had on her personal life,

127

I can say that it takes a lot of my personal time to complete a PDRP. As a solo parent working full time this is a huge emotional stress that is not helpful in supporting my home and family life. It is a cost to my children and mental/emotional well-being that it is expected of me.

All three participants who referred to ‘off duty’ or ‘personal time’ had submitted portfolios on the NZBS PDRP programme. Participants 13 and 81 also indicated that the biggest issue with PDRP was the time it took to complete. These participants had not submitted a portfolio on the NZBS programme and it remained unknown whether they had completed a portfolio in a previous employment situation. Consequently, it was impossible to understand if this opinion was based on previous experience or on

hearsay. However, further specific insights into how time had become an issue for PDRP completion were available.

Time was also defined as ‘time to learn new skills’ by two respondents. The skills involved appeared to make it possible to participate or to support others. Skills were listed as learning to type or to write a Nursing Council peer assessment. Paradoxically, ‘time for writing Nursing Council peer assessments’ was itself highlighted as a particular issue. One respondent indicated that it was hard to ask a colleague to complete a peer assessment as it was well known that these assessments could take time to do. The comment was validated by another respondent who explained how it could take a long time to complete a peer assessment. She had been approached by several staff to do so in the past and had found it a strain.

From the replies provided, it could be reasoned that the amount of time taken for PDRP completion at home was not welcomed. It seemed that attempting PDRP could also bring with it the need to learn additional skills which added to the overall time it took to complete. Moreover, for those who had persevered, their newly learned

128 skills became useful resources for other staff. Consequently, it seemed there was more pressure put on these individuals to make time to support others. Being successful with PDRP appeared to bring with it an unintended burden of committing even more time to support colleagues.

4.6.3 Accessing and using study leave

The Multi-Employer Collective Agreement (MECA) contract makes provision for two days study leave to support those who are preparing a PDRP portfolio.

Interestingly, participants 40 and 41 stated that they had not known about their entitlement until they were completing the questionnaire. Both were from the same NZBS region. A respondent from a different region of NZBS had been able to access the study leave available, but commented,

Having the paid time given as 2 days spread out. This makes it difficult.

Respondent 29 clearly also knew that study leave was available, but outlined that,

Staff have also started and not finished due to not being given the study time to do so.

The responses appeared to show that information about and access to study leave had not reached all prospective PDRP participants and indicated that there was room for improvement in information provision. Further, when leave entitlement was understood, there appeared to be incompatibility between what was expected and granted when leave was applied for.

4.6.4 Valency of PDRP

Whilst the benefits of PDRP appeared to be well understood in the survey, the free text comments revealed the detail of portfolio requirements for each level might

129 not be. Respondent 68 called for more information and clearer expectations of what was actually required.

When PDRP was attempted, participants seemed to have little clarity about the relevance of requirements like a written reflection. Respondent 8 appeared to have started writing a reflection but had been hindered by the need to revise their work which left them feeling that what they had,

achieved so far [was] not on the right track at all.

Another opinion was that PDRP was too hard to complete and academically focussed. Participant 38 thought the process was daunting and participant 71 had objected to receiving feedback about grammar and academic style. Yet another participant

reported her focus had been directed towards getting the right academic language for Nursing Council competencies. Two other participants were concerned that PDRP was not an accurate reflection of work performance and capability and indicated that PDRP was more a ‘paper exercise’. Another participant outlined that some people could write excellent portfolios but that these was not always reflective of their everyday

contribution at work. Two others simply did not perceive that completing PDRP requirements would make them a better nurse.

Participants had not appreciated the educational value of PDRP in terms of being able to develop clinical practice. The impression of PDRP was that it had more academic, rather than practical, benefit. Therefore, for some of the participants, the valency of the learning activity on these terms appeared not to be a reasonable

expectation or sufficient reward to warrant completion. Indeed, not even the prospect of receiving any associated benefits like exemption from recertification audit or

130 for those 14 respondents who had not completed PDRP and who had provided free text responses.

4.6.5 Miscellaneous

Opinion on the financial rewards of PDRP were written about by three respondents. One comment provided insight into how this associated allowance became integral to the family budget.

The amount of time to complete versus the monetary gain is not worth the time or energy involved except that $74 per fortnight of one income would be missed if I didn't repeat my PDRP.

Effectively, money had become the valency for this participant, rather than any of the intended professional development goals.

The predicament of those who had English as a second language was also described in the comments. One participant reported being reluctant to start PDRP as communicating in written English on the topics outlined in the application brochure was too difficult.

4.6.6 Answering the quantitative phase questions

The data from the survey gave significant insights into nurses’ knowledge of NZBS PDRP, its associated processes, resources and support; their attitudes to it as a learning activity, and the factors that influenced their decision to participate. This data was gathered to answer the questions posed in this phase of the study. In the

subsequent sections, each question is answered using that data. Areas for further explanation were identified and are used as justification for the questions to be posed in the second, qualitative phase of the study.

131