Perceptions of the Acceptability and Practicality of a Creative Learning Collaboration Between Nursing and Creative Arts Students: A Qualitative Focus Group Study

ABSTRACT

Aim

The aim of this descriptive, qualitative study was to explore stakeholders' perceptions of the acceptability and practicality of implementing a peer‐to‐peer creative learning collaboration between nursing and creative arts students.

Methods

Data were collected via in‐person, separate focus groups with students and staff and were analysed thematically. Convenience sampling was used to attract students, while purposive sampling was used to attract staff. Ethical approval was granted by the host university.

Design

An exploratory qualitative design was used, adopting a stakeholder‐focused approach with perspectives captured from students and teaching staff and interpreted using thematic analysis.

Results

Staff participants expressed that if the Pragmatics of Implementation (Theme 1) could be overcome, the proposed learning and teaching collaboration would provide the opportunity for students in both schools to further Develop Their Communication Skills (Theme 2) and Reflective Practice (Theme 3), vital for Graduate, Professional Practice (Theme 4). The student participants focused on the importance of Communication (Theme 1) in the student‐to‐student collaborations. If the Pragmatics of Implementation (Theme 2) were addressed there would be Benefits (Theme 3) for students from both disciplines. A peer‐to‐peer collaboration would need to respond to different priorities and expected outcomes from the respective disciplines. Students enrolling in an opportunity to learn from and with their peers need to be able to negotiate priorities, while staff need to work with colleagues from different disciplines. A collaborative assessment may provide this opportunity. There is potential benefit in an interdisciplinary peer‐to‐peer learning setting to demonstrate reflection and improve collaboration. Students and staff are interested in and curious about the opportunity to try something new.

Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care

An interdisciplinary collaboration between nursing and creative arts students may support the development of graduate capabilities relevant to professional practice, particularly communication, reflective practice, perspective‐taking, and relationship‐building. For nursing education, such collaborations may provide an alternative approach to developing communication and reflective skills, including opportunities for students to communicate clinical experiences in accessible language and reflect more deeply on practice experiences. These capabilities may have relevance to nursing practice and patient care by supporting communication beyond professional jargon and greater awareness of patients perspectives. No patient or public contribution.

1. Introduction

Nursing academics have a limited range of approaches to offer nursing students to debrief, process and reflect on their clinical placement experiences, which are known to be stressful. Similarly, creative arts academics have limited access to interdisciplinary opportunities to enable creative arts students to work across disciplines.

1.1. Background

Clinical placements can be challenging and stressful for student nurses with limited experience adapting to the professional role (Levett‐Jones et al. 2018). Personal and professional reflection on placement experiences is essential for developing skills and an understanding of person‐centred care (Rieger et al. 2016; Schwind et al. 2015). Arts‐based teaching can support reflection and enhance learning by creating opportunities for self‐expression, increasing enjoyment and participation while fostering a sense of community and comfort among nursing students (Obara et al. 2022; Perry et al. 2021). These approaches help students ‘achieve an understanding of human conditions they could not otherwise experience’ (Wikstrom 2001, 25), enhancing their empathy, compassion, and communication skills (Timpani et al. 2021). Arts‐based strategies play a role in developing nursing students' capacity for empathy and emotional engagement when considering patient care (Elhammoumi and Kellam 2017; Jack and Tetley 2016; Levett‐Jones et al. 2024; Sandberg 2016).

With the increasing focus on transformative and integrated learning strategies in higher education, there are opportunities for collaboration between nursing and creative arts using creative practices (Cattoni et al. 2022). This may involve interdisciplinary peer‐to‐peer collaborations between students across both disciplines. Peer‐assisted learning can contribute to building self‐confidence, providing emotional support and minimising stress (McKenna and French 2011). Other benefits could result in improved communication skills, increased self‐awareness, team collaboration, shared decision‐making and problem‐solving (Furseth et al. 2016; van Schaik et al. 2016). When provided with opportunities to share experiences and reflect on their emotional and clinical learning during placement in collaboration with creative arts students, nursing students capacity to understand and participate in patient‐centred care may be enhanced (Schwind et al. 2015). Creative arts students may develop competencies in collaborative practice (Anderson and Albin‐Clark 2013; Barrett et al. 2021).

A recent integrative review of collaborations between nursing and creative arts students identified potential benefits for students' professional identity, communication and reflective skills, and interdisciplinary understanding, but highlighted that relatively few such collaborations have been reported and that implementation requires attention to practical considerations, including time, a safe environment, and opportunities to focus on the collaborative process (Gower et al. 2026). Therefore, the aim of this project was to explore stakeholders' perceptions of the acceptability and practicality of implementing a peer‐to‐peer creative learning collaboration between the Curtin School of Nursing (SoN) and the School of Media Creative Arts and Social Inquiry students. Focus groups (FG) explored considerations for implementation and training requirements for teaching staff.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Design

To explore the perceptions of stakeholders, an exploratory qualitative study was designed, with data collected via FG and analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke 2022). The reporting of this study follows the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist, file S1 (Tong et al. 2007).

The peer‐to‐peer learning collaboration explored in this study was conceptualised as a proposed pilot project rather than an existing project or curricular activity. The findings are intended to inform the design of a voluntary pilot activity and to assess the feasibility of later integrating the model into curricula or offering it as an optional assessment task.

As the collaboration had not yet been implemented and was not part of an existing curricular requirement, students who did not participate in the FG did not miss curriculum‐related content, assessment activities or learning opportunities. The FG were conducted to explore perceptions of a proposed future pilot project. Non‐participation did not affect students' access to teaching, placement learning, assessment or academic support.

2.2. Setting

The FG were conducted in person at Curtin University. The staff FG were conducted in December 2023, and the creative arts and nursing student FG were conducted in March 2024. Ethical approval was granted by Curtin University.

2.3. Participants

Convenience sampling and purposive sampling, informed by recommendations from teaching staff, were used to recruit students with an interest in a peer‐to‐peer creative learning collaboration between nursing and creative arts students. Nursing students were required to have completed their second year to ensure adequate placement experience. Creative arts students were recruited from second and third year cohorts, with representation sought from screen arts, theatre and fine art. The nursing cohort totalled 201, while the creative arts cohort totalled 192 students (45 theatre, 66 fine art, 81 screen arts). Purposive sampling was used to recruit staff, targeting leadership and unit coordinators from the two schools. Participation was voluntary, and participants were assigned to a FG at a time convenient to them.

2.4. Data Collection

FG were selected as the primary data collection method because they facilitate interaction between participants, allowing discussion, comparison of perspectives, and exploration of shared and divergent views regarding the acceptability and practicality of implementing a peer‐to‐peer creative learning collaboration. FG with staff were conducted separately from student FG to reduce perceptions of power imbalance. Participants were informed about the project aims and objectives at the beginning of each FG. Student participants were also provided with a series of prompts to demonstrate different models of creative interdisciplinary collaborations between artists and other disciplines as a precursor to the questions.

Focus group participants were provided with an interview schedule and information sheet prior to the interviews. Written consent was obtained from participants, including agreement to be audio‐recorded, before taking part. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions before providing consent and also consented to the use of data already collected prior to withdrawal. Participants were informed that data collected from the FG would be de‐identified and that information shared during the focus group discussions would remain confidential. To minimise potential coercion, recruitment materials and participation information emphasised that participation was voluntary.

Staff FGs included unit coordinators and senior staff. Creative arts students and nursing students were interviewed in separate groups. One nursing student FG (n = 4), one creative arts student FG (n = 6), and two mixed staff FGs (n = 4, 6) were conducted. One creative arts student (n = 1) interview was also conducted. As the questions used in the FGs and the one‐to‐one interview were the same, it is unlikely that the mixed data collection methods affected the analysis or interpretation. The number of FGs and the use of a single interview were determined by participant availability and willingness to participate during the recruitment period. This accounts for the variation in data collection approaches and numbers within the FG.

The interview questions were generated from literature following discussion within the research team. Data were collected through discussions exploring participants perceptions of acceptability, practicality, considerations for implementation, and training requirements for teaching staff. The FGs were approximately 60 min long and were conducted in quiet spaces at the University.

Field notes were taken by the designated observer for each FG. The recordings were transcribed, and the accuracy of the transcription was confirmed with the audio recording by a member of the research team. Transcripts were not returned to participants; although they were available on request, no participants requested them.

2.5. Research Team and Reflexivity

2.5.1. Personal Characteristics of the Researchers

The researchers recognised that existing relationships and disciplinary alignments may have influenced participant responses and data analysis/interpretation. Therefore, the two FGs with staff were conducted by the study Research Assistant (RA) (SS) and both FG and one‐to‐one interview with the creative arts (CA) students were conducted by the RA (SS). The RA has a background in teaching media and cultural studies. The FG with nursing (N) students was conducted by a non‐clinical Teaching and Research Academic from the Curtin SoN. Both the interview facilitators identify as female and have doctoral qualifications.

2.5.2. Relationship With Participants

The RA was not known to the student participants or staff. The SoN academic is Unit Coordinator of a theoretical unit in the Bachelor of Science Nursing program and is known to participants. However, they do not have any involvement in participants' placements, nor in the reflections they undertake as part of their clinical learning. The staff and CA student participants were informed that the interview facilitator was a RA employed for the project. The nursing student participants were informed that the SoN academic was a member of the research team. All the researchers (excluding the RA) are academics teaching into the related Bachelor of Science Nursing or the Bachelor of CA degrees. The RA had not had experience in working in clinical health settings prior to conducting the interviews. The lead researcher (KEH) was known to the CA students.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data were analysed thematically, informed by the six phases outlined by Braun and Clarke (2022). Independent analyses were conducted by coders. To enhance rigour and for consistency, the primary analysis of all FG and interview data was conducted by a member of the research team who was not involved in data collection and had no prior relationship with student participants (JB). This researcher was not known to nursing or CA students, although they were familiar with some nursing academic staff. This separation of roles provided a layer of interpretive independence during analysis.

Staff FG data were also coded by PN, while student FG data were coded by MY, SG and/or KEH.

Informed by Braun and Clarke (2022), following familiarisation with the data and initial coding (Phases 1 and 2), meaning units were systematically grouped into preliminary categories (Phase 3). These categories were then iteratively reviewed, refined, and collapsed through team discussion (Phase 4) to inductively develop themes. Themes were subsequently defined and named based on their coherence, distinctiveness, and alignment with the dataset (Phase 5), with ongoing refinement occurring throughout the analytic process. Representative quotes were selected to illustrate the themes and support the analytic narrative (Phase 6).

A coding tree reflecting the meaning units and the themes is presented as Figure 1. The overlap of themes between staff and student FGs is illustrated. Participants were not provided with the coding tree or consulted on the findings; however, students were invited to express interest in participating in any future pilot intervention.

FIGURE 1.

CODING tree diagram showing the meaning units and themes.

3. Findings

Four (n = 4) nursing students and six (n = 6) CA students, and seven (n = 7) nursing academics and three (n = 3) CA academics participated in the study. The sample size was considered appropriate for the exploratory purpose of the study and the need to capture perspectives from each of the four stakeholder groups. Recruitment was based on participant availability and willingness to participate, while seeking breadth of perspectives across nursing and CA students and academic staff. The study did not necessarily seek to achieve data saturation; rather, the sample was determined pragmatically according to the availability of participants within the study timeframe and the need to obtain perspectives across the relevant stakeholder groups. Although there is overlap between the academic staff and student themes, in the interests of clarity, these are presented separately.

3.1. Staff Focus Groups

The staff expressed that, if the Pragmatics of Implementation (Theme 1) could be overcome, the proposed collaboration would provide the opportunity for students to further Develop Their Communication Skills (Theme 2) and Reflective Practice (Theme 3), vital for Graduate, Professional Practice (Theme 4).

3.1.1. Theme 1—Pragmatics of Implementation

The participants (Sp) described a number of pragmatic issues that would need to be overcome for the student‐to‐student collaboration to be adopted, including clear guidance on the selection of appropriate students (i.e., which semester they are completing) and the need for professional emotional support for students as the task may be (re)‐traumatising for the nursing student or cause secondary/vicarious trauma for the CA student.

They are all being asked to think about audience and to think about communicating to an audience, not just creating something for me, but for somebody else. (FG1, CASp2)

We want them to share their experiences. But we don't want to cause trauma for anyone listening. So, there is someone in the room to say if you're uncomfortable at the end of this, you can come speak to me. (FG1, NSp1)

To aid in the (self)‐selection of students, a clear and detailed description of the process will be required, including how patient and student confidentiality is maintained.

Confidentiality would also be a consideration… I teach legal and ethics and we drill into them about their requirements for confidentiality that will need to be clearly outlined. If something is shared, where is the protection for nursing students? (FG 1, NSp1)

From an (alternative) assessment perspective, suggestions included the need for clear descriptions of the assessable component, how assessment equivalence is to be determined and the development of appropriate marking guides and rubrics.

A couple of very similar assessments… if the initial assessment is on the project proposal… And the second one the presentation of it… and the third is a reflective essay. The weighting of the assessments could be the same, but different criteria for the project or their reflection. (FG2, CASp3)

Finally, the participants agreed that academic staff have some, but minimal, experience working cross‐occupational (outside of health or outside of the CA), but that with appropriate support the collaboration may build and develop relationships between the two schools and between academics.

It would be a learning curve for them. It depends on (how) unit coordinators from CA and nursing can work together to ensure that this should work. Developing a guideline in terms of how they can proceed… how to work together, interdisciplinary. We are not only talking about the students, but also talking about the actual curriculum. (FG2, NSp2)

3.1.2. Theme 2—Developing Communication Skills

The participants described how they perceived that the student‐to‐student collaboration would assist CA students to develop their communication skills through the need to understand and meet a client brief.

I'm imagining there being some process with the CA students and the nursing students where they communicate… reflect on who they are and what they do. (FG 1, CASp2)

The participants perceived that the collaboration would also support nursing students to develop their communication skills through describing a clinical situation in a confidential manner using lay terms.

That's where our students will be able to work well with yours. Tell us about how many bandages you did today. What were your patients like? Tell me. Just the story of a bit of equipment they've used or there's so many different things that they can then come out and express what they do. (FG 2, CASp3)

3.1.3. Theme 3—Developing Reflective Practice

The participants described how they perceived that the student‐to‐student collaboration would assist nursing students with many aspects of professional reflection, including debriefing, developing deeper reflection capabilities, and reflecting to improve their well‐being.

Reflection is an integral skill of the nurse, built into our standards of practice, but it's probably an area where students actually… tell a story rather than think about what they did. This activity might actually help them to achieve a deeper reflection. (FG1, NSp4)

They don't give a really rich kind of reflective process. When you talk to someone else and you're working with someone else, you learn from them and you can actually reevaluate that reflection. They could probably reflect much deeper and… they'd certainly get more out of it. When you're talking about well‐being, that would certainly benefit. (FG2, NSp5)

Similarly, the participants expressed that CA students would also be able to develop their reflective capability through reflection on the process (of co‐creating the art piece), to gain a deeper understanding of what the ‘client’ expects from the artwork. A nursing academic noted the challenges that nursing students might face:

So that reflective and kind of visual creating something different and art out of that is definitely not in the students. They just have a task. They want to achieve the task. They want to tick the box, and they want to move. There will be a lot of coaching them through what we actually want to achieve and how that should be done differently, to reflect on that. (FG1, NSp3)

Finally, the participants felt that both students in the dyad would benefit from the formalisation of the collaboration as an alternative assessment to develop reflection, due to the engaging nature of the assessment task.

If they can do a reflective piece on the experience that they have had, then that could be linked to the practice. It could be recorded. It could be… I'm not sure we could have different approaches to reflection… you might give them a different opportunity to express themselves and to achieve that assessment. (FG1, NSp3)

3.1.4. Theme 4—Preparation for Professional Practice

The staff were experienced in their respective disciplines and were able to describe how the student‐to‐student collaboration may be of professional benefit to the collaborators, developing valuable graduate capabilities that are transferable to the workplace.

It's why this project is important. Helping a student to think differently about a problem is what we should be getting them to do, because when you only have a very narrow focus, then you are not really becoming the Registered Nurse that we need for the future. (FG1, NSp4)

From a CA point of view, that clientele relationship building… that's really important from a student's outcome point of view. (FG1, NSp1)

3.2. Student Focus Groups

The students focused on the importance of Communication (Theme 1) in the student‐to‐student collaboration. If the Pragmatics of Implementation (Theme 2) were addressed, there would be Benefits (Theme 3) for students from both disciplines.

3.2.1. Theme 1—Communication

The participants CA expressed the importance of setting up communication guidelines and clear parameters for collaboration in which CA students' input is respected and incorporated into the final artwork outcome.

When you fully understand a brief and you connect with it, that's when you get a better outcome as well as a better journey towards it. (CAFG2, Sp1)

Students emphasised having good communication and feedback systems in place, clear outcomes and a choice in who they work with, as well as the nursing students being given a choice about who they work with and the creative medium.

You communicate to make one project instead of them just being, ‘you can just go do your bit and we've already given you the information’. (CAFG2, Sp6)

In representing and interpreting the nurses' experiences, they emphasised the potential for different levels of understanding and expectations of the creative process. This would need to be managed through good communication between students. There could be a burden on the CA students to manage the nurses' experiences, especially emotionally related issues.

Another concern is maybe sensitivity to their experience… For the nursing students… we don't have training and that sort of thing. It's probably fine, but we aren't therapists or anything. (CAFG2, Sp3)

Students described being used to addressing difficult and challenging stories in the creative process.

I feel like we're very creative. Our students have come kind of from trauma, like a lot of people [who] go to art… they're very used to hearing the worst… the CA people are very open minded and they don't really get freaked out. (CAFG1, Sp1).

The experience of communicating medical terminology and procedures to someone from outside the profession, who is unfamiliar with the jargon and abbreviations, was felt to enhance nursing students' communication skills and make them more effective in their roles.

Our acronyms of how we shorten things… unless you are in a health field, you're not going to know… it's like its own little language. (NFG, Sp2)

You explain lots of things to patients. You can't just walk in and say… in all your medical jargon… blah blah. Your patient is going to be sitting there going ‘what?’ To be able to explain it to someone now… it sort of teaches you. (NFG, Sp3)

Communicating a shared understanding effectively, recognising the different perspectives and expectations of the arts (in general) and nursing students. Not knowing how you are being perceived, developing trust in the other student and the process was a concern.

With any collaboration, you assume everyone is thinking what you're thinking… So, it is really going to be able to push those communication skills so that you are seeing the same thing as someone else, especially someone you don't have a history with, so you don't know their perspectives, their background. What are they seeing? (NFG, Sp2)

One of the students described benefits to patient care that could come from enhanced communication skills and an acute awareness of the non‐medical or patient perspective.

Nursing can fall into being task driven… and that does ensure or aids the patient's wellness, but at the same time, they can be completely disorientated with what's going on. If you've learned early on to engage with them, to speak with them, to empathise with their situation, it is mutually beneficial. (NFG, Sp 2)

Nursing students described being able to communicate their clinical experiences and have these represented in a creative art piece as a positive process.

Participants (CA and nursing) offered suggestions such as a bonding session at the beginning of the workshop process to establish rapport and trust between students. Having ‘getting to know you’ workshops at the start would enable the nursing students to be able to choose their respective art form and CA partner.

The idea of workshopping beforehand to meet the nursing students, allow students getting to know each other. Also, the idea that we also get input into who we are working with because some of the nursing students might have preferences to who and what type of output they want from the project. (CAFG2, Sp6)

There was consensus that having a good process would help produce an ‘authentic piece’ (CA, FG2, Sp1). Preliminary activities were emphasised to develop interpersonal skills and build trust.

If there's a session at the beginning that's more focused towards group bonding in a way that would help getting that trust. (CAFG2, Sp1)

The significance of having one submission (artwork) where you must communicate and commit to the process to produce a collaborative work was discussed and affirmed as a priority area.

You're there from the beginning and to the end that's a good way of doing it. (CAFG 2, Sp1)

Implementing ‘touch points’ (CAFG2, Sp 1) and ‘checking in’ (CAFG2, Sp4) to promote the sharing of information, such as regular communication (feedback and discussion via face‐to‐face meetings, email or online) was suggested to ensure understanding and ‘both parties being clear’ (CAFG2, Sp3) on the project parameters and expected outcomes. The collaborative intention of the artwork being co‐designed needs to be clearly laid out at the beginning and structured into the process.

Both parties being clear and the nursing students especially… laying out what they want. (CAFG2, Sp3)

Including a critical reflection component in the project for the nursing students to assist with processing and reworking of their personal stories was recommended.

Having them self‐reflect and gather their thoughts and then share. (CAFG2, Sp3)

An exhibition setting to have that art piece and the nursing student's reflection next to it and people can see both sides of the experience. That would be interesting. (NFG, Sp3)

Drawing on their prior knowledge of the arts in other contexts, the nursing participants felt integrating the arts into the reflection process could improve their placement experiences. The prospect of collaborating with a CA student to talk and debrief as a basis for an artwork was perceived to be a positive alternative to their current task‐focused report mode of reflective writing. One student described how long it took to process the experience of a patient death: ‘I was experiencing more grief than I thought’. With more focus on process, it would enable ‘expressing how your emotions played out, how it made you think, how it made you change your, your perception … how you remember it or view it or perceived it’ (NFG1, Sp 1). Students felt collaborating on a creative project would be an opportunity to build on existing knowledge and assist in further learning. Being affirmed and valued through this process was important to both cohorts.

3.2.2. Theme 2—Pragmatics of Implementation

CA students expressed concerns about having the time to develop and make the work in the context of a pilot project being outside of the curriculum and voluntary.

I feel that if you have more time to communicate with the collaborator, it would help improve the outcome because then you would be on the same page. (CAFG2, Sp1)

They stressed the importance of setting parameters so the work is achievable within the resources and timeframe to ensure ‘fair and honest representation of the experience ’ (CA, FG2, Sp4), highlighting time allocation and scheduling. Students cited that different creative processes depending on their medium/art form would need to be clearly communicated and understood by the nursing students.

You sit down at pre‐production… But then to leave the arts students to just make it… You run the risk of straying from that truthfulness of the experience. Having the nursing students actively involved throughout the process would be very important… that fair and honest representation of the experience, then it does really make that issue of time and scheduling problematic. (CAFG2, Sp4)

Being able to represent the nurse's experience accurately, ‘truthfully’ (CAFG2, Sp 4) without having experienced a placement themselves was a concern.

Obviously, as a CA students, we're not the ones going out on the placement… we're external to that and trying to find what they want or what they [are] feeling could be a challenge. (CAFG2, Sp4)

They felt nursing students don't need to be involved at every step in the making of the artwork but there needed to be opportunities for feedback. The level of the nursing students' involvement in the producing of the artwork would be dependent on the individual nursing students' interests and this should be acknowledged to not make unreasonable demands on nursing students.

Concerns about levels of sensitivity to the experience of the nursing students and not having the skills or training to undertake a debriefing process were discussed. They felt there would be a requirement to have skills in working with the nurses' stories. For example, conducting interviews, sharing information, setting boundaries, to determine ‘how much to probe’ (CAFG2, Sp3).

By extension, confidentiality of the nurses' experiences and maintaining patient confidentiality was also considered to be important.

Remember to focus on the nurse, the nurses' experience, rather than, ‘oh this is what it's like in a hospital’ or wherever they go. (CAFG2, Sp4)

Nursing students felt there would be difficulty with timetabling and scheduling. Some online meetings would provide flexibility.

Two faculties… timetables are going to be, completely, overlapping and crazy… having a time that neither of the students are busy… that's going to be quite challenging. (NFG, Sp3)

Nursing students suggested an ‘anonymous showcase’ (NFG, Sp2) to introduce them to the CA students and their works, to assist in identifying what type of work resonates with them to begin the process of interaction.

Both CA and nursing students felt attitudes may affect the process if nursing students are not interested or if they hold judgemental perspectives or stereotypes.

Close mindedness. I would feel like just the kind of shutting it down because of the stereotypes around creativity and ‘oh, you're going to be this loud person who's really annoying and likes theatre and stuff’. (CAFG1, Sp1)

It depends on your experience… I imagine that people that have never been exposed to (arts) might (not)… see the point in that, but I've firsthand seen the impact it can make on people. It seems to happen a lot with STEM majors that there's this superiority complex over the arts. So, there's potential that people might think ‘Ohh, it's arts. It's a waste of time. It's not valuable’. (NFG, Sp3)

3.2.3. Theme 3—Benefits

Students regarded the project as potentially mutually beneficial in sharing experiences and learning about each other's professions and processes, breaking down stereotypes.

That superiority complex that STEM students have over art students like seeing their creative process would be, wow, this is something I could never do, this is actually hard [and] just because it's not necessarily like science equations, it doesn't mean it has less merit than what I'm doing (NFG1, Sp3).

I feel like we have maybe not enough respect [for the arts], but some respect for nurses. And arts can get dismissed a lot of the time as, ‘oh it's fun, I watch that movie, I listen to that song’, but the creation of it and the work that goes into it, a lot of people don't either experience or they've never seen [the process], so they don't understand or respect it (CAFG2, Sp 4).

Nursing students were positive at the thought of collaborating with a CA student to create a work of art to reflect a deeper understanding of their experiences. Having a different perspective, being able to express themselves, and emotional wellbeing were emphasised.

It'll be a good way to express in a different form rather than just writing it down on paper in words only (So you feel it might be a deeper experience?) Yeah (NFG, Sp5).

If you've had a bad experience on placement, something traumatic has happened, just being able to pour that out into something like art, even pour it out to an art student and have them do it for you. I imagine it would be quite cathartic. That's what I always found with drama… at high school (NFG, Sp3).

CA students were able to see connections with other situations and contexts when working with a ‘client’ in a real world context. They expressed some dissatisfaction with former interdisciplinary collaborations within CA and saw this project's focus on lived experience as potentially meaningful and rewarding.

Theatre is an intimate space where everybody's there at the time, experiencing the same thing… centring yourself again in this sort of real lived experience of somebody else sort of puts the focus back on… sharing emotions, sharing experiences. The human experience, whatever that might be in any given situation. (CAFG2, Sp4).

One of the nursing students described the potential to be ‘a better nurse’ (N, FG, Sp2) through benefits that could come from enhanced communication skills and an acute awareness of the patient perspective. Students agreed on the benefits across the whole university to foster relationships across disciplines. They were enthusiastic about an exhibition outcome being accessible and of interest to people outside of their disciplines. The collaborative process may encourage further collaboration opportunities in the future, challenge stereotypes, and portray a deeper understanding of both artists and nurses and their professions.

It would be cool for not just nursing students to see, but people from other degrees like arts or business or law or anyone… they can come and see what it's like being a nursing student… nurses are very misunderstood… it would be cool for other faculties to come. (NFG, Sp3)

Because the faculties are so separate, unless you know someone in that faculty, you never even go to those buildings. One of my friends is a design student and said ‘Come along to my grad show’. It was fun, I talked to different people, saw all these amazing things, but if I didn't have that friend in this course, I never would have even known. (NFG, Sp3)

Nursing participants identified the personal benefits of sharing a different perspective, being able to express themselves, and the benefits to their emotional wellbeing through engaging in a creative process. They felt the experience would assist the nursing students to recognise creativity and understand the creative process, and benefit from learning how to self‐care, journal and express themselves creatively.

The nursing students described feeling isolated from campus life and the activities of other faculties due to the timetables and extensive placements off campus. This project offers them an opportunity to engage in campus life by interacting with students from another faculty. The CA students acknowledged they also have limited access to other students from other faculties.

I [don't] really get to interact with anyone outside of the faculty or even outside of CA. And so be nice to meet more people going through the uni experience. (CAFG2, Sp2)

Nursing students identified a sense of pride to be able to share their experiences in these works of art, that nursing students in earlier semesters could observe and benefit from. This initiative may reduce attrition from the nursing course.

I live on campus… I've got roommates who started after me, and… we've got things we wanna do together. I'm at a different point in the semester… it makes it hard to connect with other people. (NFG, Sp4)

It has isolated us… you see all these clubs. And what's the point? We're not even gonna be here for when you have your festivals… why am I gonna sign up to a social club. (NFG, Sp2)

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of nursing and CA staff and students of the acceptability and practicality of implementing a peer‐to‐peer creative learning collaboration. The potential benefits of this pedagogy include developing and improving communication skills within their respective disciplines as well as interprofessional relations, enhancing wellbeing and reflective practice; however, there were concerns about practicality and implementation. The collaborative process provides opportunities to build trust and rapport (Cattoni et al. 2022) beyond the stresses of a clinical or industry environment, giving participants an opportunity to develop their skills in communication.

Consistent with the literature, nursing student participants described many of the challenges faced by nursing students undertaking placements (Levett‐Jones et al. 2018; Luders et al. 2021). A survey of more than 1000 Australian nursing students found that although most students reported positive experiences, some felt unsafe in the clinical environment, some experienced negative attitudes from staff, were exposed to negative staff attitudes, and experienced unsafe environments and lifestyle detriments (Luders et al. 2021). Recent literature supports an indirect relationship between student self‐concept, self‐image, competence, and academic burnout (Wei et al. 2021), and a review by Russ et al. (2023) demonstrated that reflection on the experience during placement enabled students to develop confidence in their identity as a nurse.

The nursing students' comments demonstrate they are linking the process to better patient outcomes. Whereas the CA students demonstrate they are thinking about the collaboration experience but not necessarily beyond it. This difference suggests different priorities and expected outcomes within the respective disciplines. Academic staff revealed concerns that nursing students' stories of placement may include distressing content. This important ethical risk, along with the potential breach of confidentiality in sharing patient stories, is not new to nursing and has been identified and explored in a recent systematic review by Cambridge et al. (2023), necessitating a multifaceted and well‐executed process. Conversely, CA students acknowledged they may need additional support in representing challenging content (Reeves and Neilson 2018; Reeves et al. 2021).

Nursing staff speculated about how nursing students would be assessed in a future curriculum context and how collaboration would work between the schools, considering timetables and student numbers (Pavill 2011). A solution could be to offer the assessment as an option, alongside the more common individual assessment process. This could also be advantageous where student numbers in the two cohorts are not even.

Both cohorts of students and the nursing staff expressed concerns about time management and scheduling. Time management may be an issue for nursing students whose semesters of study include placement where they are off campus (Zhang et al. 2021). However, both nursing and CA graduates, who may be commissioned to produce artworks within a timeframe, will need to be able to negotiate priorities with work colleagues from different disciplines, and the assessment provides this opportunity. Students also expressed concerns and preferences about partnership‐forming processes which will need to be clearly articulated and be sensitive to both cohorts' preferences where possible.

Despite the concerns raised and the challenges that the participants voiced, nursing staff and students felt there was potential benefit in an interdisciplinary peer‐to‐peer learning setting to reduce anxiety (McKenna and French 2011) and improve students' collaboration and communication with patients in the future. Communication in nursing is essential for providing safe, effective, and compassionate care, involving both verbal and non‐verbal interactions between nurses, patients, families, and healthcare teams, and forms an integral part of the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2016). Effective communication helps build trust, reduce anxiety, ensures patients understand their care plans, and plays a critical role in patient safety (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care 2020). Reflection plays a crucial role in nursing practice by encouraging nurses to critically evaluate their experiences, knowledge, and decision‐making to support continuous learning, professional development, and improved patient care (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2016).

Similarly, CA students felt they would gain experience in co‐designing practices and working with clients in commissioned projects. They felt they would be able to make the link with real‐world experiences with the nursing student placement experiences. Although they understood the project would be working with nursing students, they recognised the skill set required to work with external clients was applicable (Canniffe 2011; Ely‐Harper and Rizzo 2025). To understand and represent the nursing students experiences accurately, they would need to practise client‐based skills such as communication, relationship building, developing rapport, and trust to achieve a shared vision.

Although not all the nursing students had direct experience of working in the CA, and the CA students had limited knowledge of working in health settings, both cohorts expressed interest and curiosity in being given the opportunity to try something new. They demonstrated a good understanding of how the CA can be applied to improve health and wellbeing (Jensen and Bonde 2018; Mundet‐Bolos et al. 2017) and were able to make connections between their own experiences with the aims and objectives of a pilot trial (Wikstrom 2001). They were enthusiastic about collaborating with peers outside of their discipline to create an artwork that would be shared. The exhibition component was seen to be an opportunity to learn about each other's profession and for a wider audience to learn about the CA and nursing disciplines (Furseth et al. 2016; van Schaik et al. 2016).

4.1. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care

An interdisciplinary collaboration between nursing and CA students may support the development of graduate capabilities relevant to professional practice, particularly communication, reflective practice, perspective‐taking, and relationship‐building. For nursing education, such collaborations may provide an alternative approach to developing communication and reflective skills, including opportunities for students to communicate clinical experiences in accessible language and reflect more deeply on practice experiences. These capabilities may have relevance to nursing practice and patient care by supporting communication beyond professional jargon and greater awareness of patients' perspectives.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

Including key stakeholders from nursing and CA for whom the project will have an impact ensured relevance and credibility of the findings. By engaging with students and teaching staff prior to the development of the subsequent pilot project, we are ensuring that staff and student voices were included in the co‐design of the implementation.

The use of convenience and purposive sampling, facilitated in part through teaching staff, may have introduced selection bias. The students who volunteered may have differed from non‐participants by having an interest in creative collaboration, stronger motivation to discuss critical reflection, or more positive attitudes towards interdisciplinary learning. The findings may over‐represent views of students already receptive to the proposed collaboration and may not fully capture the perspectives of students who were less interested or time constrained. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the acceptability and perceived benefits of the proposed pilot model.

There was an underrepresentation of staff from CA, with only screen arts staff participating. Some senior staff from both schools who may have made further contributions were unable to attend. There was an underrepresentation of student participants from fine art and theatre. Some of the students had a background in visual arts but were dominantly screen and media focused. Despite this underrepresentation, comprehensive perspectives across participant groups were gathered.

4.3. Recommendations

The views expressed by the participants have informed the development of a collaborative pilot project, supported by a set of guidelines with accompanying strategies to overcome the barriers that were raised, with attention to time management, scheduling, introductory workshops, relationship building, communication, critical reflection and collaboration protocols. Both the focus group findings and the pilot will inform a set of guidelines for implementation of the collaboration into curricula.

5. Conclusion

A collaboration between nursing and CA students may make a valuable contribution to the call for more interdisciplinary opportunities between these practitioners (Cattoni et al. 2022) to improve health and wellbeing outcomes in undergraduate settings and professional sectors. An opportunity for collaboration between nursing and CA students may develop experience and skills in communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, reflective practice, empathy building, and professional identity. This type of learning approach is likely to encounter barriers to implementation; acceptance has been demonstrated, and benefits could ensue from this form of assessment.

Author Contributions

Kerreen Ely‐Harper: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, investigation, formal analysis, validation, funding acquisition, project administration, writing – original draft. Pam Nichols: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing – review and editing, validation, investigation. Shelley Gower: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, validation, investigation, writing – review and editing. Melisa Young: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, validation, writing – review and editing, investigation. Suzanne Srdarov: project administration, data curation, investigation. Janie Brown: conceptualization, methodology, validation, investigation, formal analysis, supervision, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.

Funding

This study was funded by the Curtin Academy iSoLT Small Grants scheme and the Learning Innovation and Teaching Excellence Centre at Curtin University.

Ethics Statement

Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee has approved this study (HRE2024‐0306).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

File S1: COREQ checklist: consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.