Simulated Wound Care as a Competence Assessment Method for Student and Registered Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe the development and use of a wound care simulation assessing RNs’ and graduating student nurses’ practical wound care competence and to describe observations of participants’ wound care competence. METHODS A descriptive, qualitative design was used. Data were collected in 2019 from 50 healthcare professionals and students using a simulated wound care situation and an imaginary patient case. The simulation was based on a previously developed and tested wound care competence assessment instrument, which included a 14-item checklist that assesses practical wound care competence of chronic wounds. The data were analyzed and described based on the 14 competence areas or as other competencies. RESULTS Participants showed competence in identification of wound infection, debridement, dressing selection, tissue type identification, and consultation. Participants’ shortcomings were related to pain assessment and management, asepsis, offloading, and documentation. Simulation was shown to be a promising tool to assess healthcare professionals’ and students’ practical wound care competence in a safe and standardized situation. CONCLUSIONS This study provided new information about simulation as a method to assess student nurses’ and RNs’ wound care competence. The results could be used in wound care education planning and development in both undergraduate nursing education and continuing education for nursing professionals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".