UCH Preceptor Policy:
Removing and Revising
Healthcare is an ever changing and advancing industry that requires compliance and flexibility. Over the past two years as a Clinical Nurse RN in the AIP OR, nothing could be more true. The AIP OR has experienced significant growth through expansion with the addition of six OR suites, a state-of-the-art Hybrid and MRI suite as well as hiring over twenty new surgeons and even formation of new specialty surgical services. This expansion in-turn stimulated significant increase in staffing numbers. This need ultimately generated a high influx of inexperienced Registered Nurses and Surgical Technologist to the AIP OR.
It was during this time of incursion that I found myself precepting almost daily. I was motivated to assume this role, however, I also found myself searching for support and resources. Because the AIP OR is a specialized care setting, requiring extensive and meticulous training, it was imperative that I be prepared. Through research I was able to to identify and review the Registered Nurse Preceptor Policy and began to utilize it in hopes to support both my preceptees and myself throughout the teaching/learning relationship.
During review of the Preceptor Policy I identified that the AIP OR utilizes this policy beyond the scope of the Registered Nurse. The AIP OR utilizes this policy equally for Surgical Technologist Preceptors and even for other ancillary support care positions. Realizing that the policy was exclusive written for and addresses Registered Nurse Preceptors was concerning. Also, realizing that the policy still housed outdated appendices irrelevant to the current professional practice model recognized by leadership was provoking. This discovery required my passion for precepting to take over and contest for change. My in-depth awareness that successful and safe practice was not achievable by all positions under this limited policy heartened my interest to pursue the opportunity to update and revise the Preceptor Policy.
It was also during this review that I recognized the Preceptor Policy had a redundant and obsolete equivalent UCH Guideline accessible via the HUB. Reviewing the Preceptor Guideline I discovered that the document was identical to the Policy & Procedure document and essentially obsolete, containing more invalid appendices including AMAZE Standards. Comparing and contrasting these two documents facilitated me to reach out to the Preceptor Program Coordinator, Bebe Hoff.
Meeting and collaborating with Bebe provided me with a unique opportunity to dive-in and appreciate the significant process of P&P/Guideline development, maintenance and abstraction. This opportunity also provided insight to how the UCH leadership collaborates between departments to assess and regulate hospital resources such as P&P/Guidelines. The success of the meetings with Bebe generated review of the current Preceptor Policy, revision of content as well proposal for removal of the secondary Preceptor Guideline.
Collaborating with Bebe during this process also facilitated cooperation with other departments and leadership including Professional Resources and Human Resources affiliates, Quality Data Specialists as well as Chief Nursing Officers. The mutual interest in the Preceptor Policy by these additional stakeholders allowed me to not only work in partnership with other nursing professionals but also facilitated my discovery that the Preceptor Policy would potentially transition into a system-wide guideline.
With the discovery of this transition, I was able to connect and solicit my support for the continued development of the Preceptor Policy as a Chief Nursing Officer Council (CNOC) Project. I took the initiative to seek out these nursing professionals to inform the team of the significant work Bebe and I had completed as well as to connect with them to understand their project goals and needs for the Policy update. Despite my continuous effort and interest to provide such support, the nursing professionals kindly repudiated any further participation on my part.
Despite the impediment in my personal participation for review and revision of the Preceptor Policy, the nursing professionals did provide some insight concerning their project work for the transition to a system-wide guideline upon request. The CNOC Project team did provide me with their newly developed Preceptor Definitions. Reviewing the Preceptor Definitions helped me to visualize how the project had comprehended and incorporated my primary concern related to addressing the multiple care practice roles that function as preceptors.
In review, the dedication and effort I submitted to the revision of the Preceptor Policy and removal of the Preceptor Guideline are still developing related to the CNOC Project. Having the opportunity to partake in this venture has allowed me to understand how I have the ability to make a difference and contribute to positive change for UCH. I truly enjoyed the collaboration and partnership I experienced and am looking forward to reviewing and utilizing the future system-wide Preceptor guideline as an inclusive and supportive resource for my future Preceptorship practice.
It was during this time of incursion that I found myself precepting almost daily. I was motivated to assume this role, however, I also found myself searching for support and resources. Because the AIP OR is a specialized care setting, requiring extensive and meticulous training, it was imperative that I be prepared. Through research I was able to to identify and review the Registered Nurse Preceptor Policy and began to utilize it in hopes to support both my preceptees and myself throughout the teaching/learning relationship.
During review of the Preceptor Policy I identified that the AIP OR utilizes this policy beyond the scope of the Registered Nurse. The AIP OR utilizes this policy equally for Surgical Technologist Preceptors and even for other ancillary support care positions. Realizing that the policy was exclusive written for and addresses Registered Nurse Preceptors was concerning. Also, realizing that the policy still housed outdated appendices irrelevant to the current professional practice model recognized by leadership was provoking. This discovery required my passion for precepting to take over and contest for change. My in-depth awareness that successful and safe practice was not achievable by all positions under this limited policy heartened my interest to pursue the opportunity to update and revise the Preceptor Policy.
It was also during this review that I recognized the Preceptor Policy had a redundant and obsolete equivalent UCH Guideline accessible via the HUB. Reviewing the Preceptor Guideline I discovered that the document was identical to the Policy & Procedure document and essentially obsolete, containing more invalid appendices including AMAZE Standards. Comparing and contrasting these two documents facilitated me to reach out to the Preceptor Program Coordinator, Bebe Hoff.
Meeting and collaborating with Bebe provided me with a unique opportunity to dive-in and appreciate the significant process of P&P/Guideline development, maintenance and abstraction. This opportunity also provided insight to how the UCH leadership collaborates between departments to assess and regulate hospital resources such as P&P/Guidelines. The success of the meetings with Bebe generated review of the current Preceptor Policy, revision of content as well proposal for removal of the secondary Preceptor Guideline.
Collaborating with Bebe during this process also facilitated cooperation with other departments and leadership including Professional Resources and Human Resources affiliates, Quality Data Specialists as well as Chief Nursing Officers. The mutual interest in the Preceptor Policy by these additional stakeholders allowed me to not only work in partnership with other nursing professionals but also facilitated my discovery that the Preceptor Policy would potentially transition into a system-wide guideline.
With the discovery of this transition, I was able to connect and solicit my support for the continued development of the Preceptor Policy as a Chief Nursing Officer Council (CNOC) Project. I took the initiative to seek out these nursing professionals to inform the team of the significant work Bebe and I had completed as well as to connect with them to understand their project goals and needs for the Policy update. Despite my continuous effort and interest to provide such support, the nursing professionals kindly repudiated any further participation on my part.
Despite the impediment in my personal participation for review and revision of the Preceptor Policy, the nursing professionals did provide some insight concerning their project work for the transition to a system-wide guideline upon request. The CNOC Project team did provide me with their newly developed Preceptor Definitions. Reviewing the Preceptor Definitions helped me to visualize how the project had comprehended and incorporated my primary concern related to addressing the multiple care practice roles that function as preceptors.
In review, the dedication and effort I submitted to the revision of the Preceptor Policy and removal of the Preceptor Guideline are still developing related to the CNOC Project. Having the opportunity to partake in this venture has allowed me to understand how I have the ability to make a difference and contribute to positive change for UCH. I truly enjoyed the collaboration and partnership I experienced and am looking forward to reviewing and utilizing the future system-wide Preceptor guideline as an inclusive and supportive resource for my future Preceptorship practice.