College of nursing graduates’ perceptions of Kuwait ministry of health rotation programme: a cross-sectional study
TL;DR
Graduates generally reported favourable perceptions, but clinical supervision and programme evaluation remain priorities for improvement, and self-reported findings do not establish objective programme effectiveness.
Abstract
The transition from nursing education to professional practice can expose new graduate nurses to transition shock and workplace stress. Structured rotation programmes may support this transition, but Kuwait-specific evidence is limited. To examine College of Nursing graduates’ perceptions of the Kuwait Ministry of Health rotation programme and explore whether perception scores differed according to participant and programme characteristics. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in six general hospitals. Purposive non-probability sampling produced 357 participant records; 310 complete cases remained after listwise deletion across prespecified demographic, programme, and all 25 five-point Likert variables. Descriptive statistics, 95% confidence intervals, Cronbach’s alpha, group comparisons, and multiple linear regression with heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors were performed in Python. Among 310 complete cases, 230 (74.2%) reported a 9-month programme. The overall perception score was 3.81 ± 0.69 (95% confidence interval 3.73–3.88; α = 0.952). Knowledge and skills received the highest domain score (4.13 ± 0.73), whereas the evaluation process received the lowest (3.34 ± 0.82) after reverse-scoring the item on whether forms needed updating. In the global-question complete sample ( n = 302), 279 (92.4%) considered the programme useful and 245 (81.1%) stated that it required development. In adjusted analysis ( n = 310), primary-health-care employment was associated with higher perception scores than hospital employment (B = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.87; p = 0.001); other included characteristics were not independently associated. Graduates generally reported favourable perceptions, but clinical supervision and programme evaluation remain priorities for improvement. These self-reported findings do not establish objective programme effectiveness. Structured mentorship, trained preceptors, standardized competencies, regular feedback, and longitudinal objective evaluation are recommended.