Rachel Cardwell

Aim: To explore the positioning of the Professional Doctorate in Nursing within contemporary nursing education, particularly in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, and examine how institutional structures influence its recognition, contribution and potential to strengthen healthcare leadership and practice‐focused scholarship. Design: Discursive paper. Methods: Not applicable. Results: This discursive paper draws on contemporary literature relating to doctoral education, professional doctorates, nursing leadership, and higher education, together with the authors' collective experience in graduate research leadership, doctoral supervision, professional doctorate education, and clinical‐academic partnerships within Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Drawing on Institutional Theory as a conceptual lens, the paper argues that the uneven recognition of professional doctorates reflects institutional norms, reward systems, and historical conceptions of doctoral scholarship rather than limitations of the qualification itself. International developments are examined to demonstrate how differing educational and professional contexts influence the positioning of professional doctorates and their contribution to nursing and healthcare. Conclusion: Professional doctorates represent an important, yet under‐recognised, form of doctoral scholarship that complements the traditional Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) by integrating rigorous doctoral research with evidence implementation, clinically embedded scholarship, leadership, and healthcare improvement. Greater institutional value of both doctoral pathways may better align doctoral education with the evolving needs of contemporary healthcare. Implications for Nursing: Recognising PhD and professional doctorates as both forms of doctoral scholarship has important implications for universities, healthcare organisations, professional bodies, and policymakers. Broader recognition of implementation‐focused scholarship may strengthen clinically embedded leadership, evidence translation, workforce capability and healthcare innovation while supporting more diverse doctoral career pathways.

Aim: To systematically map evidence on how nurse managers (NMs) balance clinical and managerial responsibilities of their role. Background: Complexity of the NM role arises from its dual focus on both clinical and managerial responsibilities. Clinically, NMs must maintain expertise to guide, support delivery of high‐quality care and ensure care practices align with evidence‐based guidelines and organisational standards. On the managerial side, NMs are responsible for administrative tasks such as budgeting, staffing, performance monitoring and strategic planning. Given their significant impact on healthcare delivery, patient safety and organisational effectiveness, understanding how NMs balance their roles is essential to improving the overall quality of care in healthcare settings. Methods: Scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework for evidence synthesis was conducted. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2022) approach. Data Sources: Studies were identified through seven electronic databases without restrictions on publication dates: CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, Embase, ProQuest Central, Scopus and Web of Science and search engine Google Scholar. Reporting Method: This scoping review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) to ensure transparency and rigour. Results: Forty‐nine studies were included, identifying three main themes: key challenges faced in fulfilling clinical and managerial responsibilities, strategies used to balance roles and factors influencing prioritisation. Conclusion: Demands of dual roles often cause role ambiguity, conflict and overload, contributing to stress and job dissatisfaction amongst NMs. How they integrate clinical and managerial responsibilities remains underexplored, leaving a gap in understanding processes that guide their prioritisation and decision‐making. Understanding their challenges will help better prepare nurses for their roles. Implications for Nursing Management: NMs are crucial links between clinical care and organisational management. Further research will inform advancements in nursing leadership, healthcare management and policy development.

Background: Master's degrees for nurses have various foci including clinical practice, leadership and education, with some programs consisting of coursework, while others offer hybrid study that combines coursework and research. Multiple formats are associated with offering the research component. The research component is often termed the minor thesis. Limited knowledge exists regarding the supervision of the research component.Aim(s): To capture the practices and perspectives of experienced nurse academics regarding effective supervision of the masters‐level minor thesis in nursing coursework master degrees.The Study: Design: Qualitative descriptive.Methods: Semi‐structured interviews with 28 experienced nurse academics recruited from 15 Australian and three New Zealand universities linked to the Council of Deans in Australia and New Zealand. Inclusion criteria were having experience of supervising masters‐level minor theses and higher degrees. Interviews were face‐to‐face using the internet platform Zoom©. Thematic analysis was undertaken.Findings: The analysis revealed three themes and associated sub‐themes: (i) establishing the framework (setting up the student's research; building the student–supervisor relationship; setting clear expectations), (ii) supervisors' knowledge and actions: driving for success (supervisors' knowledge for a satisfactory and timely outcome; supervisors' actions to develop students' capabilities; supervisors' actions of drawing in other expertise) and (iii) supervisor savviness: Attending to the finer points of supervision for student success (using your attributes as a supervisor; being savvy to teach and engage students; creatively seeking a smooth process for student success).Conclusion: The findings highlight three themes crucial to effective supervision of masters‐level minor theses in nursing: Establishing a strong research framework, emphasizing supervisors' knowledge and proactive engagement and attending to nuanced aspects of supervision for student success. These insights contribute to deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of supervising minor theses, providing a valuable foundation for refining supervisory practices and enhancing the educational experience within coursework nursing master degree programs.Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: The findings highlight the supervisors' pivotal practices in guiding students through the minor thesis. These insights will be useful for inexperienced and experienced supervisors and for degree program directors. The findings should inform supervision training and supervision practices in the future.Impact: The study addressed a gap in knowledge about what experienced supervisors do to be effective and achieve success in the research component in a hybrid master degree for registered nurses. Effective supervision for student success in the minor thesis requires supervisors to establish and maintain a project and supervisory framework with appropriate boundaries and that is attuned to both the supervisor and student capabilities and preferences. Supervisors have an active role in directing the focus, scale and scope of a minor theses in keeping with university requirements and the short timeframe. Supervisors pay attention to the development of multiple student literacies (research, academic, professional, feedback and cultural) as core aspects of the masters research journey. Supervisors use their savviness and customize supervision to student contexts and capabilities as they guide development to achieve student success. The research findings have implications for targeted supervisor training and enhancing educational strategies for research supervision of minor thesis students. Reporting Method: COREQ reporting was adhered to as the relevant EQUATOR guideline.Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Aim: To develop a working definition of ‘clinical credibility’ in nursing science.Methods: This is stage 2 of a registered report. Concept mapping methodology, 1. Preparation, 2. Generation of statements (brainstorming), 3. Structuring of statements (prioritising/clustering), 4. Representation of statements, 5. Interpretation of maps and 6. Utilisation of maps were used. Part 1 of our registered report followed the required items on the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Part 2 was reporting the results of our study adhered to the STROBE reporting guidelines.Results: Participants (n = 67) from three stakeholder groups participated in this study. Nursing students (n = 23), nurses and other healthcare professionals (n = 23), and patients (within the last 12 months) (n = 21).Participants (n = 62) generated statements (n = 429) in response to the question: ‘What does clinical credibility mean to you?’. Following statement reduction, participants (n = 61) prioritised and clustered (n = 80) statements. The data were analysed using the concept mapping software, Ariadne. A visual ‘concept map’ was produced showing the importance and relationship of each statement as viewed by all participants. The final concept map had nine clusters. In order of importance these are as follows: 1. Safe practice, 2. Communication, 3. Patient‐centred care, 4. Accountable, 5. Professional practice, 6. Clinical competence, 7. Teaching attributes, 8. Contemporary expert and 9. Leadership. This study was undertaken over an eight‐month period.Conclusion: Clinical credibility is not necessarily about contemporary clinical practice. It is a multidimensional construct of which current clinical practice is one element.

This study aims to identify and contrast key stakeholder perspectives about the core competencies of mental health nurses. Mental health nurses provide much of the direct care and treatment to patients with mental disorders. The perspectives of users of mental health services, mental health nurses, mental health nurse clinical leaders, psychiatrists, and mental health nurse academics regarding the core competencies of a mental health nurse are informative to improve the quality of care given to patients. We will use concept mapping to compare and contrast the views of different stakeholder groups (n = 50, 10 per group) about the core competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) of mental health nurses. There are six stages in concept mapping: preparation, generation of statements, structuring of statements, representation of statements, interpretation of maps, and utilisation of maps. The Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) checklist will guide this study. The final output is a “concept map” that can be used and interpreted to understand core mental health nursing competencies. This study will provide insight into the perceived core competencies of mental health nurses from a variety of perspectives.

Aim: To develop a working definition of the concept of “clinical credibility” in nursing science.Background: In both academic and clinical settings, the phrase “clinical credibility” is used when discussing the education of health professionals. No clear definition for the concept is evident in the academic literature. To date, there has not been a study undertaken to develop a working definition of clinical credibility in nursing science.Methods: This protocol is stage 1 of a registered report. We will use concept mapping to compare and organise views of three stakeholder groups: nursing students (n = 20) from years 2 or 3 of a three‐year Bachelor of Nursing Programme, nurses and other health professionals (n = 20) still practising within a clinical setting, and people who have recently been inpatients in hospital (n = 20). First, participants will take part in separate stakeholder focus groups to generate statements about “What is clinical credibility?”. Second, the same participants will complete two tasks: (1) rank the importance of each statement (prioritising) and (2) put the statements that appear to go together into groups (clustering). The data will then be analysed using a specialised software program called Ariadne. A visual “concept map” will be produced showing the importance and relationship of each statement as viewed by the participants. The projected timeline for the study is one year. The paper complies with the SPIRIT 2013 guidelines for study protocols adapted for mixed methods research.Conclusion: The findings of this study will provide a working definition of the concept of “clinical credibility” in nursing science.Relevance to clinical practice: The findings can be used to develop a measure of clinical credibility to predict student satisfaction and patient safety outcomes.