Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to critically compare the impact and preparedness for practice of two types of mental health nurse training in the UK. One being a hospital-based apprenticeship model from the 1980s; the other a university-based and more academically focussed approach from this millennium. Design/methodology/approach: This autoethnographic reflective commentary describes and reviews the effectiveness of two training curricula for Registered Mental Nurse (RMN) training. The first being the certificate-level 1983 syllabus of the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, which was replaced in the late 1990s by diploma and degree-level Project 2000 training of the General Nursing Council. Using a reflective narrative approach to describe the lived experience of two qualified nurses, it compares, reviews and critiques both initiatives. Findings: The author/researchers found both benefits and negatives inherent in each model. These were grouped into five key headings, which are a sense of belonging/identity; exposure to clinical practice; differences in training modality; development of clinical management skills and clinical preparedness; and academic merit. The older curriculum lacked an academic or research base, whereas the more recent approach encouraged and enhanced this element. However, with regard to preparing the clinician/registered nurse to feel confident in addressing a range of clinical and managerial challenges, the older style training seems to deliver better outcomes. They conclude that a move towards a "middle ground" between the two models may be of benefit to future RMN preparation.Research limitations/implicationsThis study reports on the experience of two registered nurses. Therefore, the sample size is small. However, autoethnography is acknowledged as an effective means of delivering qualitative research; in addition, the authors access and use material from the wider literature to triangulate and critique their approach. This paper adds to the literature but also allows for duplication by others to further test the findings.Practical implicationsThis type of study provides an opportunity for others to review, compare and contrast nursing or other multi-discipline changes in training/curriculum. The research method is one that is transferable and can be used within areas of practice, which have resource limitations. It provides an opportunity to replicate it in other services or jurisdictions.Social implicationsNursing in the UK has experienced significant change over the past four decades. For RMNs, the move from hospitals into the community has been transformational. In addition, the influence of higher academic standards and the influence of the recent pandemic have challenged the profession and individuals within it. This study demonstrates positive and negative elements of the dilemma faced by nurses and offers a further contribution to this area.Originality/valueThere are a number of academic papers, media stories, statutory reports and guidance that explore the impact of changes within nurse training. This paper uses a first person autoethnographic study of the impact and effectiveness of these changes at a human level, the nurse on the ground. It uses the ward medicine keys as the vehicle to represent the huge responsibility that newly qualified nurses must face; this is not widely represented elsewhere in the literature!