Professional practice placements are an essential component of allied health and nursing programs. Whilst most students pass these placements, a small percentage of students will fail or be at risk of failing. Supporting students undergoing a failing experience is a time critical, time consuming, emotional and resource-heavy task which is often undertaken by key university staff and impacts all stakeholders. Whilst several studies have provided insight into this experience from the educator and/or university perspective, this scoping review aimed to identify the students' experience of failing or nearly failing a professional practice experience. Following Arskey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews, 24 papers were included in this review. This review generated six themes including the reasons for failure, how failure looks and feels, how supports, service and strategies influence the student experience of failure, the importance of communication, relationships and organisational culture, the impact infrastructure and policies have, and the consequences of failure. The outcomes of this scoping review highlighted three key characteristics of the research to date: (a) the student voice is still largely missing; (b) the student perspective is distinctly different to that of other stakeholders; and (c) the interventions used appear not to be student-informed or student-led. Better understanding this experience from the student's perspective could create a more sustainable practice education environment by designing and implementing more effective supports, services or strategies that reduce the overall impact a failing experience has on students and key stakeholders.

中文翻译：

---

联合健康专业实践实习失败：我们对学生经历有何了解？范围界定审查。

专业实践实习是专职医疗和护理计划的重要组成部分。虽然大多数学生通过了这些实习，但一小部分学生会失败或有失败的风险。支持经历失败经历的学生是一项时间紧迫、耗时、情绪化和资源繁重的任务，通常由主要大学教职员工承担，并影响所有利益相关者。虽然有几项研究从教育者和/或大学的角度提供了对这种经历的洞察，但本范围审查旨在确定学生在专业实践经验中失败或几乎失败的经历。根据 Arskey 和 O'Malley 的范围界定审查框架，本次审查包含 24 篇论文。这次审查产生了六个主题，包括失败的原因，失败的外观和感觉，支持、服务和策略如何影响学生的失败经历，沟通、关系和组织文化的重要性，基础设施和政策的影响，以及失败的后果。此次范围界定审查的结果突出了迄今为止研究的三个关键特征：(a) 学生的声音在很大程度上仍然缺失；(b) 学生的观点与其他利益相关者的观点明显不同；(c) 所使用的干预措施似乎不是学生知情或学生主导的。从学生的角度更好地理解这种体验可以通过设计和实施更有效的支持来创造更可持续的实践教育环境，