A randomized control trial to compare Quiet Eye training efficacy to traditional technical training with undergraduate student nurses' peripheral intravenous cannulation performance: a protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC) is a common and complex procedure with low first-attempt success rates, causing patient suffering and increased healthcare costs. Quiet Eye (QE) training, a gaze-focused approach, has shown promise in improving procedural PIVC skills. We will examine the effectiveness of traditional technical training (TT) and QE training (QET) on student nurse PIVC performance. METHODS: Forty-four participants will be randomly assigned to either the TT or QET groups using a blocked randomization method to ensure balanced group sizes. Blinded outcome assessments will minimize bias. Data will be collected using a structured questionnaire and a mobile eye tracker to simultaneously record gaze and hand movements. Participants will complete pre-intervention, post-intervention, and one-week retention tests using a light-skinned manikin arm. A transfer task, utilizing a dark-skinned manikin arm, will assess participants' skills post-trials. The TT group will receive traditional instruction on hand movement improvement; the QET group will receive feedback on their gaze behaviours. The primary outcome measure will be PIVC first attempt success defined as being able to flush the inserted catheter with 10 mL (maximum) normal saline into the vessel. A trial will be considered unsuccessful if more than gentle pressure on the syringe plunger is needed to flush the catheter or if the participant abandoned the attempt before attempting the flush. Other dependent variables will be QE duration (%), number of fixations, total movement time(s), and movement phase time(s). We will analyze data with descriptive and inferential statistics, including mixed model ANOVA and Chi-Square tests. DISCUSSION: This study examines the significance of improving PIVC first attempt success rates and highlights QET potential as an intervention. Emphasis is placed on critical implications for health care, particularly the importance of integrating QET into nursing education programs. Future research utilizing large-scale trials and longitudinal designs is recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".