In order to graduate nursing professionals who are ready to work in the increasingly multifaceted health care environment, nursing programs are continuously looking for effective processes to sustain and improve academic quality of their program (Phillips, Bassell, Fillmore, & Stephenson (2018). One indicator of nursing program’s commitment to improving program quality is achieving and continuing to meet the accreditation standards set by the agencies accrediting nursing programs (Billings & Halstead, 2016). In addition, nursing programs must comply with the regulatory standards set by the state boards of nursing. A shared standard both for accreditation and for the state boards of nursing is a minimum required NCLEX pass rate. Although, the most recent decision was to uphold the current passing standard (National Council of State Boards of Nursing [NCSBN], 2018a), the passing standard has been increasing since the implementation of the computerized adaptive testing in 1994 (NCSBN, 2018b), challenging nursing programs in meeting the increasing standard. A plethora of literature exists describing various strategies for improving NCLEX pass rates (Czekanski, Hoerst, & Kurz, 2018; Schroeder, 2013; Serembus, 2016; Quinn, Smolinski, & Peters, 2011) and resources are available that describe processes for curriculum and program evaluation (Billings & Halstead, 2016; Keating, 2015; Oermann & Gaberson, 2017). A collaborative, collegial review and reflection of the campus’s delivery of the academic program was developed to support adhesiveness and shared accountability.
The peer review process was developed to collect and review campus metrics, conduct a campus peer review visit, reflect on findings, prepare and disseminate feedback to all stakeholders, and to establish a peer review partnership for goal attainment. The developed process included six areas of review: Achieving student outcomes, student support, teaching/learning practices, faculty development, campus engagement, and review of campus metrics. The review process was then separated into three parts: reflective review, observational review, and documentation review. The reflective review was developed both for the review team colleagues and for the campus colleagues to reflect upon prior to the peer review campus visit and to serve as a guide for further exploration during the campus visit. The observational review was designed for the peer review colleague’s observational experiences during the campus visit and the document review outlined documentation to be shared by the campus and to be reviewed by the campus peer review team prior to the visit. Reflective questions were developed for each of the three parts to guide the team in their review. Reflective statements regarding how the peer review team can serve the campus and what resources the campus needed were included in the reflective questions for each of the areas of review, in support of adhesiveness and caring. “On a day-to-day bases, we experience a culture with an atmosphere of cooperation, trust, and collegiality whereby we address and solve problems together, most often enthusiastically and with positive attitude. At the end of the day, there is a sense of commitment to students, to the college, and to one another to work out our shared problems and prevail in our shared mission (Groenwald, 2018, p. 105).”
The peer review team consisted of colleagues from peer campuses and from the national academic team with a multiplicity of expertise and a distinct role within the six areas of review. The team worked collaboratively to identify areas of opportunity, provide feedback, and establish a peer review partnership for goal attainment. In preparation for the peer visit, the campus was asked to make documents available in a collaborative secured online site for the peer review team members to review prior to the visit.
The visit occurred over the period of two days and was designed to include observational experiences and reflections on the six areas of review including clinical, lab, simulation, and classroom visits, leadership, faculty, and student forums, as well as, student mentoring appointments. Each team member had a distinct role during the visit and a collaborative meeting was held at the end of each day for each colleague to share observations, reflect on campus successes and areas of opportunity, and provide recommendations for enhanced opportunities for improvement linked to available resources with consideration for national collaboration. The visit concluded with the peer review team sharing their observations and providing preliminary reflections and feedback. After the visit, the peer review team collaborated in a written report, which included commendations, reflections and recommendations, resources, and consultations for each of the areas of review.
Anecdotal feedback was captured and shared with the peer visit team colleagues and the campus president about the peer review process, pre-visit document review, the campus visit, and the final report. Feedback gained offered insight for further development of the peer review process. The feedback indicated that the developed peer review process along with the reflective questions, supported campus colleagues in identifying what to focus on in each area of review and that the experience was rich with collaboration, learning, and best practice sharing. Campus colleagues shared that they truly embraced the process and it supported reflective considerations before the visit in identifying opportunities for enhancement.
The pre-visit documentation review was acknowledged as key to being well prepared and identifying areas to focus on during the visit. The pre-visit documentation review supported the campus colleagues in both preparing for the visit and reflecting on opportunities for growth before the visit. The colleagues perceived the final report as being well organized and valued that resources were noted for each of the identified opportunities for growth. Several recommendations for future enhancements also arose from anecdotal feedback, including extending the visit to three full days and having more time before the visit for obtaining and reviewing the documents.
Program self-review should be systematic and ongoing (Billings & Halstead, 2016; Oermann & Gaberson, 2017). “Our belief is that peer observation, conducted in a supportive environment, fosters self-reflection, self-awareness, and personal growth and development as an educator (Groenwald, 2018, p. 38)”. Implications of developing and operationalizing this peer review process include support for a collaborative endeavor to foster adhesiveness and accountability in shared goal attainment.
Helping students be successful, including passing the NCLEX examination, is among the best service a program can provide (Groenwald, 2018). “To provide this service, we must work together as colleagues in whatever way we touch student’s lives, whether direct or indirect (Groenwald, 2018, p. 9)”. Academic environment should be like a community and foster collaboration among its members (Staffileno, Murphy, & Carlson, 2016). One way to foster academic community is to embark in collaborative endeavors (Staffileno et al., 2016), such as this peer review process.