The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Clinical Practice Education in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Study
Department of Nursing, The University of Suwon, Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do 18323, Republic of Korea
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(4), 577; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040577
Submission received: 23 February 2025
/
Revised: 25 March 2025
/
Accepted: 1 April 2025
/
Published: 7 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Nursing and Medical Education)
Abstract
:Background: This study aimed to investigate and analyze the remote teaching methods implemented in nursing education and clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of developing post-pandemic educational strategies. Methods: A structured questionnaire was administered to 92 full-time nursing professors nationwide, who were responsible for clinical courses in adult nursing. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics via SPSS. Results: The majority (96.7%) of the participants implemented remote clinical practice during COVID-19. The primary teaching methods included virtual simulation programs (76.1%) and online nursing skills programs (75%). The clinical scenarios were primarily instructor-developed (63%) or drawn from virtual simulation cases (54.3%). Most professors (69.6%) modified their evaluation methods, and 85.9% reported changes in their assignment structures compared to their pre-pandemic practice. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the effective remote clinical practice in nursing education, identifying specific programs and implementation considerations suitable for post-pandemic educational environments.
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
COVID-19 began to spread in 2020 and rapidly achieved worldwide coverage, with a high mortality rate, leading the World Health Organization to declare the outbreak a pandemic in March 2020 [1,2,3,4,5]. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the global normalization of non-face-to-face interactions, as governments worldwide implemented various lockdown measures, which significantly impacted mental and physical health, as well as education [6,7,8,9,10]. Following the Ministry of Education’s guidelines, universities began implementing remote education methods in earnest [11]. While pre-pandemic education was centered on instructors and knowledge transmission, in the post-pandemic period, education shifted towards learner-centered, competency-based, and problem-oriented approaches [12], highlighting the need for education that considers learners’ subjectivity [13]. Knowledge transfer was supplemented through online education systems [14,15,16], and nursing education also attempted to implement new teaching and learning methods using various media and materials in non-face-to-face settings [17,18,19].
Clinical practice in nursing education is an integrated type of course designed for students to apply their theoretical knowledge and skills in real-world settings [20]. The COVID-19 pandemic primarily affected clinical practice, where learning occurs through the direct and indirect observation and experience of nursing duties. As nursing students expressed fears about on-site clinical practice [21], most clinical training sought alternatives beyond hospital settings. Online nursing skills programs, which were utilized even before the pandemic, served as tools for nursing students’ skill learning, and virtual simulation programs were considered as alternative educational strategies for clinical practice, allowing students to safely experience nursing performance in virtual environments [22]. In non-face-to-face situations, efforts to implement competency-based clinical practice can be observed in nursing education through the use of small-group simulation practice and seminars within schools, securing face-to-face skill training time [23].
Research related to alternative clinical practice for nursing students includes studies on nursing students’ adaptation experiences through hospital clinical practice, even during the COVID-19 pandemic [21]; the exploration of nursing students’ experiences with alternative practices to replace hospital clinical practice [24,25]; and the confirmation of improvements in nursing students’ clinical performance and confidence [26,27,28], professionalism [29,30,31], and satisfaction [32]. However, it is difficult to find research on the specific non-face-to-face clinical practice methods developed by professors during the pandemic to replace existing clinical practice methods. From the instructor’s perspective, it is necessary to investigate specific aspects such as the evaluation methods adopted for changed clinical practice guidelines, tasks implemented to achieve learning outcomes, and changes in guidance for applying non-face-to-face clinical practice methods. It is also important to determine instructors’ thoughts about the application of non-face-to-face clinical practice methods so as to explore the various methods applicable in post-pandemic educational environments.
1.2. Aims
This study aimed to investigate and analyze alternative clinical practice methods. It was possible to obtain foundational data for the systematic organization of clinical practice course operation methods suitable for the changed educational paradigms and strategies implemented in the post-COVID-19 era.
The specific objectives of this study were as follows:
- To identify the types of non-face-to-face clinical practice that replaced standard clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic;
- To understand the operational methods of non-face-to-face clinical practice that replaced standard clinical practice during the COVID-19 period;
- To examine instructors’ opinions on the use of the non-face-to-face clinical practice methods that replaced standard clinical practice during the COVID-19 period.
2. Research Methods
2.1. Research Design
This descriptive and cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the alternative forms and operations of clinical practice implemented during the COVID-19 period.
2.2. Research Subjects
The research subjects were 92 full-time faculty members, including assistant professors, associate professors, and professors, who were responsible for delivering adult nursing practice courses in nursing departments nationwide during the COVID-19 pandemic period, beginning in 2020. They were selected through convenience sampling, considering nationwide administrative districts. This study investigated the specific configurations of alternative practical education methods, student education programs, evaluation methods, and the opinions of nursing department professors who oversaw clinical practice during the pandemic period.
2.3. Research Tools
For this study, a survey questionnaire (Google Forms) was created to investigate the non-face-to-face practice methods that replaced standard clinical practice in nursing departments during the COVID-19 period. The survey content was developed by researchers who oversaw adult nursing courses and practical training, based on the clinical practice operation status during the COVID-19 period, according to the Korean Society of Adult Nursing in 2020 [12] and a literature review. The questionnaire was designed to align with the research objectives and comprised items regarding the operation of clinical practice, non-face-to face clinical practice methods, the content of non-face-to face clinical practice, programs utilized for non-face-to face clinical practice, and questions concerning instructors’ guidance methods and opinions. The questionnaire was developed in consultation with five nursing professors responsible for teaching adult nursing courses and clinical practice. It was designed considering the programs and practical operation methods used as alternatives to standard clinical practice, and its reliability and validity were verified.
2.4. Data Collection Method
Data collection was conducted through an online survey from 28 March to 20 April 2023. An explanation of the research was presented on the first page of the online survey, and the participants proceeded with the survey only after agreeing to participate. The data were collected by sending questionnaires, along with requests for research participation, to professors of adult nursing via email addresses obtained from nursing department websites listed on the Korean Nurses Association’s website. This method ensured the reliability and transparency of the data collection process.
2.5. Data Analysis Method
The collected data were analyzed using SPSS/WIN Statistics ver. 24.0. Subjects’ general characteristics and the content regarding non-face-to-face clinical practice and operations were analyzed in terms of frequencies and percentages. Descriptive responses to the semi-structured survey questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
2.6. Ethical Considerations for Research Subjects
This study was conducted according to standard operating procedures after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (The University of Suwon, IRB No. 2212-045-02). Participants, who voluntarily agreed to participate in this study, were informed about the research background and purpose, the research methods, the protection of their personal information and confidentiality, and their right to voluntarily refuse to participate or withdraw from the research at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study. Mobile gift certificates were provided to participating subjects as a token of appreciation.
3. Results
3.1. General Characteristics
The average educational experience of the research subjects amounted to 144.63 ± 95.16 months. The locations of the participants’ universities were distributed across Gyeonggi-do, Gangwon-do, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and Chungcheongbuk-do and extended to Jeju-do. Overall, 69.6% of the subjects worked at schools without affiliated hospitals, while 30.4% worked at schools with affiliated hospitals (Table 1).
3.2. Non-Face-to-Face Clinical Practice Forms
Overall, 96.7% of the subjects had experience in replacing adult nursing clinical practice with non-face-to-face formats. In the first semester of 2023, 90.2% conducted clinical practice in hospitals in the pre-pandemic format, while 9.8% operated in mixed face-to-face/non-face-to-face practice. The duration of non-face-to-face clinical practice was most commonly one semester (34.8%), followed by two semesters (31.5%), three semesters (16.3%), and four semesters (14.1%). The reasons for substitution with non-face-to-face clinical practice included hospital requests (87%), student COVID-19 infections (40.2%), hospital COVID-19 patient infections (37%), university decisions (30.4%), and student requests (13%) (Table 2).
3.3. Alternative Clinical Practice Operation Methods
The methods used to replace clinical practice included online feedback (81.5%), virtual simulation programs (76.1%), online nursing skills programs (75%), self-study (72.8%), related video viewing (63%), self-produced video guidance (35.9%), clinical expert non-face-to-face lectures (14.1%), and electronic medical record (EMR) programs (14.1%). Conference methods were non-face-to-face (54.3%), face-to-face (15.2%), and mixed (30.4%). The cases used in practice were self-developed (63%), virtual simulation program cases (54.3%), existing practice cases (42.3%), and EMR cases (2.2%). Overall, 69.6% used evaluation methods that differed from their previous practices.
The alternative practice time was monitored through online program learning records (70.6%), assignment submission (67.4%), online conference attendance (55.4%), and online program completion certificates (46.7%). The assignment types differed from the pre-COVID-19 practice in 85.9% of cases, with 88% reporting an increased assignment volume. The practice guidance methods included online conferences (88%), online video guidance (68.5%), online feedback (66.3%), online lectures (42.4%), and face-to-face conferences (33.7%) (Table 3).
3.4. Detailed Program Operation
For online nursing skills programs, the allocation methods were autonomous learning (19.5%) and period-based allocation (89.5%). The performance verification methods included students’ submission of completion certificates and learning records (73.9%), as well as professors’ verification of learning records (20.3%). The utilization of virtual simulation programs included conferences (77.1%), case reports (41.4%), and self-study (21.4%). The verification of students’ performance on virtual simulation programs included performance score submission (97.1%) and professor-accessed record verification (50%). The core nursing skills practice methods included online nursing skills programs (53.3%), in-school practice (47.8%), video viewing (23.9%), online guidance (15.2%), and self-practice (3.3%). The core nursing skills evaluation methods included in-school face-to-face performance evaluations (56.5%), online oral evaluations (18.5%), skill performance video submissions (16.3%), written evaluations (15.2%), and online skill evaluations (8.7%) (Table 4).
3.5. Instructors’ Thoughts on Alternative Clinical Practice
The advantages of non-face-to-face clinical practice for students included time utilization (78.3%), physical comfort (62%), the utilization of various programs (48.9%), individualized guidance (28.3%), level-specific self-learning (27.2%), and stable training (19.6%). The disadvantages included the lack of direct observation (75%), the inability to verify communication (71.7%), the inability to use clinical equipment (50%), individual practice variations (28.3%), and the inability to experience clinical cases (28.3%).
For instructors, the advantages included the use of various programs (43.5%), ease of material use (38%), ease of practice guidance (35%), ease of individual feedback (23.9%), and in-depth conferences (10.9%). The disadvantages included the difficulty of designing the practice program (53.3%), evaluation difficulties (40%), case assignment difficulties (39.1%), difficulties evaluating core nursing skills (26.1%), and increased guidance time (7.6%). Overall, 73.9% of the subjects reported increased guidance time, while 21.7% reported no change. Regarding the achievement of learning outcomes through non-face-to-face clinical practice, 29.3% considered it appropriate, 47.8% moderate, 20.7% inappropriate, and 2.2% very inappropriate (Table 5).
4. Discussion
By discussing the results of this study and those of previous studies [23,33,34], which explored nursing students’ experiences with changed clinical practices and analyzed the effects of non-face-to-face practice, it is possible to obtain a three-dimensional understanding of the alternative clinical practices adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic period.
While this study found that 96.7% of the participants implemented alternative hospital practices during the COVID-19 pandemic period, research on nursing management operations during the same period showed that 69.2% conducted alternative hospital practices [35], revealing differences in the use of clinical practice alternatives between adult nursing and nursing management.
Online feedback was most commonly used as a non-face-to-face practice method, which aligns with the finding of individualized guidance being an advantage for students in non-face-to-face practice. This interpretation is consistent with previous research, where nursing students who experienced non-face-to-face clinical practice described individualized feedback as an advantage [33]. It suggests that online feedback provides advantages in terms of student-tailored feedback for both learners and instructors and could be considered for future clinical practice applications.
This aligns with research findings showing the use of virtual simulation programs and web-based technical training programs in medical and nursing student education during the same period [36]. Virtual simulation programs were used as cases for clinical practice, and their effectiveness in improving knowledge and problem-solving skills in clinical practice was confirmed [22]. International research showed that, during the COVID-19 pandemic period, computer-based simulation practice constituted 61%, and high-fidelity simulation constituted 12% of the alternatives to clinical practice [37], showing similar results to this study and suggesting the need to consider the advantages of related programs for clinical practice application in the post-pandemic era.
Self-study was used in 72.8% of cases as an alternative type of clinical practice, reflecting the difficulties faced by professors responsible for structuring the required clinical practice hours due to sudden hospital practice interruptions [35] and aligning with nursing students’ experiences, highlighting the lack of systematic organization in alternative practice [33]. However, self-study was considered as an alternative practice, as clinical practice inherently requires time for observation, self-reflection, and judgment [38]. Moreover, it should be noted that nursing students’ perceptions of self-study varied between positive and negative depending on their recognition types [25,39].
The use of self-produced videos and online clinical expert lectures as alternative methods reflects professors’ efforts to mimic clinical field experience and create alternative practice content. This is confirmed by research on the development of online clinical practice programs [40,41] and represents a consideration for future clinical practice applications. Clinical expert lectures were evaluated as efforts to complement the field presence of non-face-to-face clinical practice by presenting and explaining the clinical field environment online to nursing students who could not experience the hospital setting. This could be considered as an alternative for hybrid practice in the future.
Considering the unstable clinical practice due to unpredictable schedules that depended on the COVID-19 status and hospital field situation during the pandemic period [42], the provision of stable practice education through the use of various alternative programs was evaluated positively.
Clinical practice has longer completion hours compared to theoretical courses, so, when operating alternative clinical practices, nursing students’ participation time must be verified and reflected in their evaluations. For this, the overseeing professors directly verified their students’ program log records, confirmed their assignment submissions, checked their online conference attendance, and verified their online program certificates. This caused an increased workload compared to the existing clinical practice, and previous research has also pointed out the lack of preparation time for such professors [35], which is also reflected in the results of this study.
Online conferences and online feedback were common in specific guidance methods for alternative clinical practice, and previous research also showed that nursing students who experienced non-face-to-face practice viewed individual guidance and feedback positively, considering them advantages of this type of practice [38,40]. However, some cases reported insufficient instructor feedback during alternative practice [43], indicating the need for individual feedback to accompany online conferences and online feedback. This confirms the importance of educators’ feedback that takes nursing students’ practical experiences into account [44,45], as emphasized in traditional clinical practice education, highlighting the need for systematic evaluation and feedback [46].
Although standard clinical practice was reinstated after the pandemic, the use of online education programs and the shift to feedback-centered education is an ongoing trend experienced by both users and providers in clinical practice education. Based on the lessons learned from these trends, it is proposed that the application of non-face-to-face methods and the introduction of relevant programs be reflected in policies to enhance nursing education and facilitate adaptation to clinical practice in the future. This study identified the characteristics of alternative clinical practice from the instructor’s perspective, and future research suggestions include studying nursing students’ experiences with alternative clinical practice operations and conducting follow-up studies, such as qualitative meta-synthesis research, which could comprehensively verify the nursing students’ experiences with individual programs.
This study’s strength lies in its ability to conduct simultaneous online surveys with professors responsible for clinical nursing practice education across all regions of South Korea. This method ensured the reliability and transparency of the data collection process and allowed for a more detailed investigation into the provision of clinical practice education, enabling systematic analysis and the incorporation of participants’ opinions to accurately reflect the realities of non-face-to-face clinical practice education during the pandemic.
However, this study did have certain limitations. Although a convenience sample was drawn from across the nation, this study did not include aspects of clinical practice beyond adult nursing. Additionally, participants were selected using information from university websites, which may not have reflected recent changes, potentially introducing bias into the study results.
5. Conclusions
This study revealed that alternative clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic period was conducted using online programs, with changes in guidance methods, evaluation methods, assignment allocation, and assessment. For practical training operation that aligns with learning objectives in the rapidly changing post-COVID-19 environment, the overseeing professors could consider applying hybrid-type practices that incorporate field learning while developing systematic practice education content that does not depend on a physical hospital setting. This could be achieved by considering the advantages and disadvantages of the programs, guidance forms, assignment utilization, and conference operation methods used in alternative practice, as identified in this study.
Nonetheless, administrative and financial support from educational authorities is needed to develop clinical practice education programs, and policy support from relevant major academic societies and the Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education is deemed necessary. By systematically analyzing the results of research on the effectiveness of non-face-to-face clinical practice, alternatives to various forms of clinical practice education can be designed.
The significance of this research lies in its identification of the learning elements resulting from non-face-to-face clinical practice operations. Through this study, we can propose the application of and further research on the aspects of non-face-to-face education that can be utilized in nursing clinical practice.
Funding
This study was supported by a research grant from the University of Suwon in 2022.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was conducted in accordance with the Institutional Review Board of The University of Suwon Institutional Review Board (No. 2212-045-02, approved on 13 December 2022).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
- Woolf, S.H.; Chapman, D.A.; Sabo, R.T.; Zimmerman, E.B. Excess Deaths From COVID-19 and Other Causes in the US, March 1, 2020, to January 2, 2021. JAMA 2021, 325, 1786–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karako, K.; Song, P.; Chen, Y.; Tang, W.; Kokudo, N. Overview of the characteristics of and responses to the three waves of COVID-19 in Japan during 2020–2021. Biosience Trends 2021, 15, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Jang, J.; Park, S.Y.; Ahn, S.H.; Kim, S.-S.; Park, S.B.; Ryu, B.; Lee, S.-Y.; Shin, E.; Kim, N.-Y.; et al. COVID-19 outbreak report from January 20, 2020 to January 19, 2022 in the Republic of Korea. Public Health Wkly. Rep. 2022, 15, 796–805. [Google Scholar]
- Cucinotta, D.; Vanelli, M. WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- WHO. WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19—11 March 2020. [Internet]. 2022. Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 20 March 2025).
- Scuri, S.; Tesauro, M.; Petrelli, F.; Argento, N.; Damasco, G.; Cangelosi, G.; Nguyen CT, T.; Savva, D.; Grappasonni, I. Use of an online platform to evaluate the impact of social distancing measures on psycho-physical well-being in the COVID-19 era. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, J.; Yang, S.; Chen, C.; Li, H. The impacts of COVID-19 on distance education with the application of traditional and digital appliances: Evidence from 60 developing countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkhamees, A.A.; Alrashed, S.A.; Alzunaydi, A.A.; Almohimeed, A.S.; Aljohani, M.S. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the general population of Saudi Arabia. Compr. Psychiatry 2020, 102, 152192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, C.; Zhang, T.; Li, Q.; Chen, X.; Wang, K. Depression and Anxiety During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Epidemiology, Mechanism, and Treatment. Neurosci. Bull. 2023, 39, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokhrel, S.; Chhetri, R. A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. High. Educ. Future 2021, 8, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Education. Guideline of Academic Operation for COVID-19. Available online: https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/viewRenew.do?boardID=294&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe&m=020402&opType=N&boardSeq=79711 (accessed on 10 July 2024).
- Korean Society of Adult Nursing. Adult Nursing Education Strategies in COVID-19 Era. Winter Conference of Korean Society of Adult Nursing. 2020. Available online: https://www.ana.or.kr/board/lists?b_name=bo_reference&per_page= (accessed on 10 July 2024).
- Kim, J.S.; Kim, J.Y.; Joo, I.H. Undergraduate Students’ Subjective Perception Types towards Non-face-to-face Remote Classes. J. Korean Soc. Sci. Study Subj. 2021, 55, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.W.; Han, S.H.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, N.Y.; Oak, J.W. Analysis of domestic education trends after COVID-19: Focusing on non-face-to-face education. J. Next-Gener. Converg. Inf. Serv. Technol. 2020, 9, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girija, M.; Frincy, F.; Sheeba, E.; Omar, A.R. COVID-19 pandemic and remote teaching: Transition and transformation in nursing education. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 2021, 18, 20200082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, G.M.; Kim, Y.; Kim, S.K. Factors influencing the learning transfer of nursing students in a non-face-to-face educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea: A cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2023, 20, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.Y.; Shin, H.S. An analysis of the trends in studies related to contactless and remote class operations for the college students of nursing and health related major programs. J. Korean Nurs. Res. 2021, 5, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, P.; Shi, Y.; Cui, J.; Wang, J.; Ren, J.; Hambly, B.D.; Bao, S.; Xu, Z. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on nursing higher education at Chengdu University. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0286290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawasaki, H.; Yamasaki, S.; Masuoka, Y.; Iwasa, M.; Fukita, S.; Matsuyama, R. Remote Teaching Due to COVID-19: An Exploration of Its Effectiveness and Issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spurr, S.; Bally, J.; Ferguson, L. A framework for clinical teaching: A passion-centered philosophy. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2010, 10, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kwon, S.H.; Kim, Y.K.; Bang, M.S.; Ryu, M. Nursing students’ experiences of adapting to clinical practice in the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Korean Acad. Soc. Nurs. Educ. 2022, 28, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.S.; Kim, J.H.; Lim, J.Y.; Kim, G.M. Effect of Psychiatric Nursing Practice Online Education Using Case-Based VR. J. Korean Acad. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 2021, 30, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.S.; Kim, E.M.; Lee, D.S. A Study on the Experience of Nursing Student’s Clinical Education in School Practice: Focused on Psychiatric Nursing Practice. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2021, 22, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, M.H. The Experience of Mixed Lectures of Nursing Students. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2021, 22, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, E.H.; Han, A.Y. Nursing students’ perceptions of clinical practice after the COVID-19. J. Korean Soc. Sci. Study Subj. 2023, 63, 51–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shim, M.J. Relationship between Practical Satisfaction, Learning Confidence, and Nursing Clinical Competency of In-class Practical Education due to COVID-19. J. Next-Gener. Converg. Technol. Assoc. 2021, 5, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bang, K.S.; Kang, J.H.; Nam, E.S.; Hyun, M.Y.; Suh, E.; Chae, S.M.; Choi, H.; Shin, D.A. Nursing students’ confidence in clinical competency and job readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic era. J. Korean Acad. Soc. Nurs. Educ. 2021, 27, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Y.S. Relationship between clinical practice stress, communication skills, and clinical performance in nursing students who experienced virtual online clinical practice. Korean J. Health Promot. 2023, 23, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koo, O.H. The Influence on Nursing Professionalism of Nursing Students who experienced Non-face-to-face Clinical Practicum. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2021, 22, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, M.J.; Kim, J.S.; Ok, N.Y. Impacts of alternative clinical practice on nursing professionalism in nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Korean Acad. Soc. Nurs. Educ. 2024, 30, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Choi, J.; Kim, J.; Lee, K. The Relationship Between On-Site Clinical Practice, Nursing Professional Value, and Nursing Clinical Self-Efficacy During COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2023, 16, 4163–4172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, H.O.; Lee, J.H. Nursing students’ satisfaction and clinical competence by type of pediatric nursing practicum during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Korean Acad. Soc. Nurs. Educ. 2024, 30, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.H. Content analysis on online non-face-to-face adult nursing practice experienced by graduating nursing students in the ontact era. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2021, 22, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, G.M.; Chang, S.J.; Kim, J.A. Types of perception toward non-face-to-face clinical practice among nursing students. J. Korean Acad. Soc. Nurs. Educ. 2023, 29, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, E.A.; Jung, Y.M.; Kim, M.Y.; Kim, J.H.; Park, M.H.; Ryu, K. The Current Status of Nursing Management Practicum during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. Adm. 2022, 28, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, X.; Peng, X.; Ding, X.; Qin, Y.; Lv, M.; Li, J.; Li, K. Application of digital education in undergraduate nursing and medical interns during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2022, 108, 105183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kalanlar, B. Nursing education in the pandemic: A cross-sectional international study. Nurse Educ. Today 2022, 108, 105213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, S.Y.; Cho, M.Y. Nursing students’ experiences of online adult nursing practicum in COVID-19. J. Learn.-Centered Curric. Instr. 2021, 21, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, E.G. Perspectives on Nursing Profession for a Post-COVID-19 New Normal. Korean J. Adult Nurs. 2020, 32, 221–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, W.G.; Park, J.M.; Song, C.E. Development and Application of an Online Clinical Practicum Program on Emergency Nursing Care for Nursing Students. J. Korea Entertain. Ind. Assoc. 2021, 15, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwak, K.H.; Choi, H.M.; Hwang, S.W. The Development and Application of the Alternative Clinical Practicum Program for the Delivery Room and the Newborn Nursery in the Non-face-to-face Distance Education Environment. J. Korean Nurs. Res. 2021, 5, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, D.H.S.; Yang, J.H. Clinical Practice Experience of Nursing Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Korean J. Adult Nurs. 2021, 33, 509–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.Y.; Lee, E.H. Clinical Practice Experience of Nursing Students in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Korean Acad. Fundam. Nurs. 2022, 29, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.M. Factors affecting nursing students’ activeness in clinical education. Perspect. Nurs. Sci. 2017, 14, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flo, J.; Byermoen, K.R.; Egilsdottir, H.Ö.; Eide, H.; Heyn, L.G. Nursing students’ experiences of virtual simulation when using a video conferencing system—A mixed methods study. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 2021, 18, 20210056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, S.J.; Yang, E.B.; Hwang, E.H.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, Y.J.; Jung, D.Y. Current Status and Future Direction of Nursing Education for Clinical Practice. Korean Med. Educ. Rev. 2017, 19, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
General characteristics of participants (n = 92).
| Variable | Category | n (%) or Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 88 (95.7) |
| Male | 4 (4.3) | |
| Subject | Adult nursing | 84 (91.3) |
| Community nursing | 3 (3.3) | |
| Administration nursing | 3 (3.3) | |
| Fundamental nursing | 2 (2.2) | |
| Educational Career | 144.63 ± 95.16 (months) | |
| 1~10 years | 43 (46.7) | |
| 11~20 years | 35 (38.0) | |
| 21~30 years | 10 (10.9) | |
| 31 years~ | 4 (4.3) | |
| Location | Seoul | 8 (8.7) |
| Busan | 4 (4.3) | |
| Incheon | 3 (3.3) | |
| Daegu | 4 (4.3) | |
| Gwangju | 2 (2.2) | |
| Daejeon | 3 (3.3) | |
| Kyeonggi | 12 (13.0) | |
| Gangwon | 11 (12.0) | |
| Chungbuk | 8 (8.7) | |
| Chungnam | 9 (9.8) | |
| Gyeongbuk | 10 (10.9) | |
| Gyeongnam | 4 (4.3) | |
| Jeonbuk | 8 (8.7) | |
| Jeonnam | 5 (5.4) | |
| Jeju | 1 (1.1) | |
| Affiliated Hospital | Yes | 28 (30.4) |
| No | 64 (69.6) |
Table 2.
Types of non-face-to-face practice (n = 92).
| Variable | Category | n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Type of practice | ||
| 2020~2022 | Face-to-face | 3 (3.3) |
| Non-face-to-face (mixed) | 89 (96.7) | |
| 2023 | Face-to-face | 83 (90.2) |
| Non-face-to-face (mixed) | 9 (9.8) | |
| Duration of non-face-to-face practice | 1 semester | 32 (34.8) |
| 2 semesters | 29 (31.5) | |
| 3 semesters | 15 (16.3) | |
| 4 semesters | 13 (14.1) | |
| 5 semesters | 3 (3.3) | |
| Reason for non-face-to-face practice | Hospital’s opinion | 80 (87.0) |
| Students’ COVID-19 illness | 37 (40.2) | |
| COVID-19 patients in hospital | 34 (37.0) | |
| College decision | 28 (30.4) | |
| Students’ opinion | 12 (13.0) | |
| N.A. | 3 (3.3) |
Table 3.
Operation of non-face-to-face practice (n = 92).
| Variable | Category | n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Type of replacement practice | Online feedback | 75 (81.5) |
| Virtual simulation | 70 (76.1) | |
| Nursing skills online program | 69 (75.0) | |
| Self-study | 67 (72.8) | |
| Associated video program | 58 (63.0) | |
| Instructor-created videos | 33 (35.9) | |
| Clinical expert lectures (online) | 13 (14.1) | |
| Electronic medical record (EMR) program | 13 (14.1) | |
| Virtual reality (VR) program | 4 (4.3) | |
| Augmented reality (AR) program | 3 (3.3) | |
| In-school practice | 1(1.1) | |
| Type of conference | Face-to-face | 14 (15.2) |
| Non-face-to-face | 50 (54.3) | |
| Mixed | 28 (30.4) | |
| Case for practice | Developed case | 58 (63.0) |
| Case of virtual simulation | 50 (54.3) | |
| Existing practice case | 39 (42.3) | |
| Case of electronic medical record (EMR) | 2 (2.2) | |
| Type of evaluation | Same as before | 28 (30.4) |
| Not same as before | 64 (69.6) | |
| Method used to record practice time | Log data for online program | 65 (70.6) |
| Submission of assignments | 62 (67.4) | |
| Attendance of online conferences | 51 (55.4) | |
| Certification for online program | 43 (46.7) | |
| Type of assignment | Same as before | 13 (14.1) |
| Not same as before | 79 (85.9) | |
| Amount of assignments | Increased assignments | 81 (88.0) |
| Decreased assignments | 1 (1.1) | |
| No answer | 10 (11.9) | |
| Method of instruction | Online conference | 81 (88.0) |
| Online video | 63 (68.5) | |
| Online feedback | 61 (66.3) | |
| Online lecture | 39 (42.4) | |
| Face-to-face conference | 31 (33.7) |
Table 4.
Details of program operation.
| Variable | Category | n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Method of allocation of nursing skills program (N = 69) | Allocation | Weekly | 16 (23.2) |
| Daily | 31 (44.9) | ||
| Hourly | 13 (18.8) | ||
| Uncertain | 2 (2.6) | ||
| Self-discipline | 15 (19.5) | ||
| Method used to check accomplishment of nursing skills (N = 69) | Students submit certification and learning records | 51 (73.9) | |
| Teachers confirm log data | 14 (20.3) | ||
| Dual check (teacher and student) | 23 (33.3) | ||
| Method of utilization of virtual simulation (vSim) (N = 70) | Conference | 54 (77.1) | |
| Assignments for case report | 29 (41.4) | ||
| Self-discipline | 15 (21.4) | ||
| Running with teacher online | 11 (15.7) | ||
| Method used to check accomplishment of virtual simulation (vSim) (N = 70) | Submit scores | 68 (97.1) | |
| Check log data | 35 (50.0) | ||
| Reports | 7 (10.0) | ||
| Method used to develop core nursing skills | Nursing skills program (online) | 49 (53.3) | |
| In-school practice | 44 (47.8) | ||
| Authorized video | 22 (23.9) | ||
| Teaching online | 14 (15.2) | ||
| Self-discipline | 3 (3.3) | ||
| Method of evaluation for core nursing skills | In-school skill test | 52 (56.5) | |
| Online verbal test | 17 (18.5) | ||
| Skill performance video | 15 (16.3) | ||
| Written test | 14 (15.2) | ||
| Online skill test | 8 (8.7) | ||
| In-school verbal test | 6 (6.5) | ||
| Report | 4 (4.3) | ||
| Certification of nursing skills program | 4 (4.3) | ||
| Replacement for written test | Test online | 44 (47.8) | |
| Test in school | 37 (40.2) | ||
| No test | 6 (6.5) | ||
| Self-study | 5 (5.4) | ||
| Replacement for learning outcomes regarding communication, cooperation among experts and professional ethics | Conference after assignment | 36 (39.1) | |
| Utilization case | 30 (32.6) | ||
| Report | 25 (27.2) | ||
| Same as before | 8 (8.7) | ||
| Written test | 2 (2.2) | ||
Table 5.
Opinions of instructors regarding alternative practice.
| Variable | Category | n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Advantages of non-face-to-face practice for students | Flexible use of time | 72 (78.3) |
| Physical comfort | 57 (62.0) | |
| Utilization of various programs | 45 (48.9) | |
| Individualized instruction | 26 (28.3) | |
| Self-study by level | 25 (27.2) | |
| Stable training | 18 (19.6) | |
| Disadvantages faced by students in non-face-to-face practice | Cannot observe nursing tasks directly | 69 (75.0) |
| Cannot experience clinical environment | 66 (71.7) | |
| Cannot see communication | 53 (57.6) | |
| Cannot experience clinical devices | 46 (50.0) | |
| Individual practice deviations | 26 (28.3) | |
| Cannot experience clinical cases | 26 (28.3) | |
| Cannot experience cooperation among experts | 24 (26.1) | |
| Cannot experience diagnostic study | 14 (15.2) | |
| Cannot experience ethical issues | 13 (14.1) | |
| Advantages of non-face-to-face practice for teachers | Utilization of various programs | 40 (43.5) |
| Ease of use of data | 35 (38.0) | |
| Ease of teaching practice | 33 (35.0) | |
| Ease of individual feedback | 22 (23.9) | |
| In-depth conferences | 10 (10.9) | |
| Disadvantages faced by teachers in non-face-to-face practice | Difficulty in organizing program | 49 (53.3) |
| Difficulty in evaluation | 34 (40.0) | |
| Difficulty in allocation of cases | 36 (39.1) | |
| Difficulty in evaluation of core nursing skills | 24 (26.1) | |
| Increased instruction time burden | 7 (7.6) | |
| Time for instruction | Increased | 68 (73.9) |
| Same | 20 (21.7) | |
| Decreased | 4 (4.4) | |
| Achievement of learning outcomes | Very appropriate | 0 (0.0) |
| Appropriate | 27 (29.3) | |
| Typical | 44 (47.8) | |
| Inappropriate | 19 (20.7) | |
| Very inappropriate | 2 (2.2) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Park, K. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Clinical Practice Education in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040577
AMA Style
Park K. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Clinical Practice Education in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(4):577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040577
Chicago/Turabian StylePark, Kuemju. 2025. "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Clinical Practice Education in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 4: 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040577
APA StylePark, K. (2025). The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Clinical Practice Education in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(4), 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040577
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
