High-Fidelity Simulation of Pediatric Emergency Care: An Eye-Opening Experience for Baccalaureate Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Little attention has been given to in-depth examination of what high-fidelity simulation is like for nursing students within the context of a pediatric emergency, such as a cardiopulmonary arrest. It is possible that such high-fidelity simulation could provoke in nursing students intense psychological reactions. Purpose The purpose of this study was to learn about baccalaureate nursing students' lived experience of high-fidelity simulation of pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest. Method Phenomenological methods were used. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 12 students and were analyzed for themes. Results The essence of the experience is that it was eye-opening. The students found the simulation to be a surprisingly realistic nursing experience as reflected in their perceiving the manikin as a real patient, thinking that they were saving their patient's life, feeling like a real nurse, and feeling relief after mounting stress. It was a surprisingly valuable learning experience in that the students had an increased awareness of the art and science of nursing and increased understanding of the importance of teamwork and were feeling more prepared for clinical practice and wanting more simulation experiences. Conclusion Educators should capitalize on the benefits of high-fidelity simulation as a pedagogy, while endeavoring to provide psychologically safe learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".