宮本 美穂

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the practical actions that experienced nurses working at community general support centers perform to provide comprehensive community care that supports the lifestyles of residents, including older adults. METHODS: The participants were full-time nurses with at least 9 years of experience working at community general support centers in Japan. Semi-structured in-person interviews were conducted between August and December 2023, and the results underwent qualitative descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Ten core categories, twenty-six categories, and eighty-eight subcategories were identified as actions that nurses at community general support centers performed. The 10 core categories were assessment for care prevention, communication that builds trust, networking, promotion of nursing care prevention, coordination of the care team, creation of projects and resources that can be locally implemented, creation of a local care system, teamwork among professions at the community general support center, self-improvement to improve one's expertise, and operational management for implementing effective support. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses performed practical actions to both provide individual support and community development. The results suggested that nurses used the networks they had built through performing their daily work duties, including providing support to individuals, to support community resources. They also utilized community resources in local communities to create care systems in the community.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of face-to-face and distance learning in interprofessional education. METHODS: We conducted a survey using the Japanese version of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) to compare face-to-face and distance learning among students from four joint medical and welfare universities participating in interprofessional education (IPE). Faculty members who participated in both face-to-face and distance learning were also surveyed for free descriptions of the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face and distance learning; their responses were then coded and categorized. RESULTS: In both face-to-face and distance learning, the RIPLS overall and "teamwork and collaboration" scores significantly increased after class compared to before class. There was a significant increase in "IPE opportunities" in face-to-face learning. There was little change in "uniqueness of profession" before and after class in both face-to-face and distance learning. The difference in the overall scores before and after class was significantly larger in face-to-face learning than in distance learning. The advantages of face-to-face learning included smooth communication and discussions. Distance learning was useful for connecting universities across large distances; however, there were disadvantages, such as less smooth communication and discussions and difficulty maintaining concentration. CONCLUSION: Face-to-face learning may be more effective than distance learning. Distance learning had issues with "IPE opportunities," while both face-to-face and distance classes had issues with "uniqueness of profession."

OBJECTIVES: To compare the characteristic competencies of public health nurses working for the older adult's health and welfare in public administration ("PA") with those at community general support centers ("CGSC") in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire survey by mail for PA and CGSC public health nurses. A competency list that was developed to compare three groups (PA, CGSC experts with ≥5 years of experience, and CGSC newcomers with ≤2 years of experience) was used. The following characteristics were examined: (1) competencies acquired early after arriving at the CGSC, (2) competencies acquired through a certain amount of CGSC experience, (3) common competencies, (4) competencies that even experts lacked, and (5) competencies that the newcomers lacked. RESULTS: We examined the responses of 171 PA nurses, 185 CGSC expert public health nurses, and 165 CGSC newcomer public health nurses. The results of comparison of the three groups showed that (1) had no applicable items; (2) had nine items for individual support associated with preventive care management; (3) had 14 items including teamwork among three professionals (social workers, senior care manager, public health nurse)/other professionals and self-improvement; (4) had three items for community development, (5) had two items for individual support and 16 items for community development. CONCLUSION: Initiatives for preventive care and coordination of care teams should be supported and suggested as characteristic competencies for CGSC public health nurses.