Evaluating a Serious Gaming Electronic Medication Administration Record System Among Nursing Students: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although electronic medication administration record systems have been implemented in settings where nurses work, nursing students commonly lack robust learning opportunities to practice the skills and workflow of digitalized medication administration during their formative education. As a result, nursing students' performance in administering medication facilitated by technology is often poor. Serious gaming has been recommended as a possible intervention to improve nursing students' performance with electronic medication administration in nursing education. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to examine whether the use of a gamified electronic medication administration simulator (1) improves nursing students' attention to medication administration safety within simulated practice, (2) increases student self-efficacy and knowledge of the medication administration process, and (3) improves motivational and cognitive processing attributes related to student learning in a technology-enabled environment. METHODS: This study comprised the development of a gamified electronic medication administration record simulator and its evaluation in 2 phases. Phase 1 consists of a prospective, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with second-year baccalaureate nursing students at a Canadian university. Phase 2 consists of qualitative focus group interviews with a cross-section of nursing student participants. RESULTS: The gamified medication administration simulator has been developed, and data collection is currently under way. CONCLUSIONS: If the gamified electronic medication administration simulator is found to be effective, it could be used to support other health professional simulated education and scaled more widely in nursing education programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03219151; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT03219151 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yjBROoDt). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9601.
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 | 0.023 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".