Are Traditional and Simulated Clinical Environments Meeting Nursing Students’ Learning Needs?

Where Are We Now? A Follow-up Survey on Regulation of Simulation Use in United States Prelicensure Nursing Programs

Background

Approval of simulation in substitution of traditional clinical hours increased in nursing programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet these temporary and inconsistent between states. Variability and a return to "pre-pandemic" limits on simulation use amplify questions about consistency of learner outcomes.

Methods

Boards of Nursing (BONs) of the United States and District of Columbia (DC) were queried to verify accuracy of simulation regulations posted on the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning (INACSL) regulatory map and to identify factors contributing to regulatory changes.

Results

Approximately half of respondents indicated information posted on the INACSL regulatory map is accurate for their state. Almost 30% of respondents indicated information is not accurate. Some states could not confirm accuracy of simulation regulations posted.

Conclusions

Many nursing programs expanded the use of simulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reverting to "prepandemic" limited simulation use presents a missed opportunity to advance nursing education and align simulation regulation with the growing body of evidence supporting its outcomes.

Development of the Student Nurse Subjective Evaluation of Completed Clinical Practice Placement Instrument

BACKGROUND

Instruments that measure clinical learning environments have lacked rigorous methodological approaches in their development and validity.

METHOD

Development research using a survey design approach was conducted for an instrument to evaluate the quality of nursing students' clinical practice placement.

RESULTS

The development and validity of the Student Nurse Subjective Evaluation of Completed Clinical Practice Placement (SNEP) resulted in a 40-item instrument to evaluate nursing students' experience of their completed clinical practice placement. Adequate level of model fit was indicated (χ²[719] = 1909.47, p < .001) for the confirmatory factor analysis (χ²/df = 2.66, comparative fit index = 0.92, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.92, and root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.07). Standardized factor loadings were high, ranging from 0.68 to 0.95.

CONCLUSION

The SNEP was designed and validated incorporating the perspective of various nurse stakeholders and can be used in both research and clinical learning environments. [J Nurs Educ. 2022;61(10):559-569.].

Assessing the Financial Sustainability of High-Fidelity and Virtual Reality Simulation for Nursing Education: A Retrospective Case Analysis

To stimulate classroom discussion and collaboration amid the COVID-19 pandemic, increasingly creative pedological methods for nursing education are necessary. Traditionally, high-fidelity simulation has been the standard for nursing education, but the use of virtual reality simulation is increasing. One of the major evaluative measures of simulation clinical training is the cost associated with each modality. In this retrospective case analysis, budget impact analysis methods were employed to compare high-fidelity simulation with virtual reality simulation. The components of each simulation pedagogy were compared in categorized cost buckets. Overall, virtual reality simulation education was determined to require 22% less time than high-fidelity simulation education. The cost associated with the virtual reality simulation was found to be 40% less expensive than the high-fidelity simulation. Our results demonstrate that virtual reality simulation is a financially advantageous, resource conscious pedagogical option for nursing education.