First Contact With Care Through Clinical Simulation in Nursing Students: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical simulation with standardized patients provides nursing students with their first approach to care in a safe and realistic environment. This type of experience arouses intense emotions and supports the development of key competencies. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of nursing students during their first contact with care through simulation experiences with standardized patients. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive phenomenological study using focus groups and reflective narratives with a sample of 59 students. A thematic analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti (version 24; Scientific Software Development GmbH). Results: Three thematic blocks, along with their categories and subcategories, were identified: (T1) first contact with simulation, (T2) learning and competencies, and (T3) preparation for clinical practice. Conclusions: Clinical simulation has a profound impact on nursing education by offering a safe and realistic environment in which to learn from experience. Emotions, teamwork, and human interaction enrich learning and strengthen professional identity. This approach supports the integration of technical knowledge and relational skills. The results support the inclusion of active and humanized methodologies in training plans.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".