Board #248 - Program Innovation Unresponsive Patient Simulation for Undergraduate Nursing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives The primary objective of this study is to develop, implement and evaluate level unresponsive patient simulation scenarios for first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year undergraduate nursing students on the critical assessment and interventions for an unresponsive patient. Secondary objectives are to describe nursing student participant’s knowledge, skill and self-confidence performing assessment and interventions for the unresponsive patient and to describe nursing student encounters with unresponsive patients in the clinical setting. This secondary objective is part of the longitudinal nature of the overarching study, while this report is a cross-sectional study and will focus on the primary objective. Description Nursing assessment skills are a fundamental component of nursing education. Basic Life Support, a non-academic yearly requirement for undergraduate nursing students, provides practiced instruction in the basic assessment and interventions for unresponsive patients. Despite this, undergraduate nursing students lack confidence and proficiency in performing these basic critical assessments and application of appropriate interventions for an unresponsive patient. This cross-sectional study sampled nursing students (N=92) enrolled in all four years of the BScN program. Students in each course participated in the three-leveled high-fidelity unresponsive patient simulated scenarios. A performance checklist was used to evaluate student performance of critical assessments and interventions for the unresponsive patient. Following each simulation, consenting participants were asked to complete a survey to evaluate their knowledge of the critical assessments and interventions for the unresponsive patient and their self-confidence performing these skills. Learners were also asked questions about their satisfaction with the simulation scenarios and about their own experiences with unresponsive patients in the clinical setting. Conclusion Using simulation to expose nursing students to leveled complex scenarios involving an unresponsive patient required students to apply theoretical and clinical knowledge in a practice setting. Knowledge increased in both assessment (100%) and intervention scores (91.9%) post-simulation. Significant improvement post-simulation was found in student’s self-confidence in assessment (93.5%) and interventions (98.4%). Improved teamwork collaboration, encouraged critical thinking, connected theory to practice, and was perceived to directly link theory with practice. Conversely, despite participants prioritizing oxygenation as a critical intervention (pre-test), application of oxygen and poor techniques in assisted ventilation (bag-valve mask) was found. Participation in the unresponsive patient simulation scenarios improved learning outcomes in terms of knowledge and performance of the critical assessments and interventions for the unresponsive patient. These results are encouraging and suggest the use of nursing simulation improve nursing confidence through critical thinking and the application of clinical skills. Overall, participants valued the simulation experience and requested continued and increased use of simulation in nursing education. References 1. Madden C. (2006). Undergraduate nursing students’ acquisition and retention of CPR knowledge and skills. Nurse Educ Today 2006;26:218-227. 2. Rice B. (2010). Life saving students: Training students in immediate life support is good news for patients. Nursing Standard 2010;24:61. Disclosures None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,141 | 0,035 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».