Effect of SBAR situational awareness technique as educational intervention on critical care nurse students' skills of patient safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Situation awareness could actively scan for risk across multiple domains. It has been defined as “the perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future”. Situation awareness includes three levels; perception, comprehension, and projection. Perception is the first step in developing situation awareness as it includes students' perception of status, attributes, and dynamics of relevant elements in the ICU environment. Comprehension of the present situation is based on outputs of the perception. It includes understanding of the significance of the relevant elements. Finally, projection of future status includes the ability of students to predict the future actions of certain elements in the ICU environment. Appropriate situation awareness could increase the probability of a good task performance. In addition, feedback covers state of the ICU environment affected by both decisions and performance of the selected actions. While SBAR is acromion that represents the actual application of situational awareness through situation, background, assessment and recommendation. A representation of SBAR situational awareness has been depicted as an inner factor in the method for giving patient consideration and basic leadership that helps health care professionals to handle and process information about what is occurring. SBAR is a mechanism useful for framing any conversation, especially critical ones, requiring a practitioner's immediate attention and action to foster a culture of patient safety. Critical care nurses play an important role in their workplace related to patient safety. They should be able to recognize and analyze patient safety incidents using protocols, work in a team, learn from errors, and be able to identify actions and recommendations on how to prevent patient safety incidents through the use of SBAR situational awareness technique. Nursing students’ should recognize and understand what is going on around them. Consequently, they can plan ahead with greater knowledge to patient safety which arise the need to integrate SBAR situation awareness in their curricula.Method: A quasi experimental research design was used in this study in which two tools were used for data collection: “Self-Situational Awareness Assessment Questionnaire” and “Critical Care Nurse Students’ Safety Skills Checklist”.Results: There was a statistical significant difference between both groups of students in relation to situation awareness perception, process and skills (p < .001). Moreover, there was a statistical significant difference between the study and control groups in relation to the students' practices score regarding patients’ safety standards in the post-assessment phase (p < .001).Conclusion: In the current study, the SBAR situation awareness technique was used in training critical care nurse students to improve their situation awareness level to patient safety skills. Situation awareness perception, process and skills level were significantly increased for critical care nurse students who are subjected to the training program. Also, the students' skills regarding patients' safety standards practices were significantly improved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".