The impact of incorporating a simulation program into the undergraduate nursing curricula: A cross-sectional descriptive study

AIM

To determine the degree of satisfaction for each academic year and according to the type of simulation performed (simulated patient actor/advanced simulator) among nursing students after the use of clinical simulation.

INTRODUCTION

Clinical simulation is currently being incorporated in a cross-cutting manner throughout undergraduate nursing education. Its implementation requires a novel curricular design and educational changes throughout the academic subjects.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed.

METHODS

During the academic years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, 425 students completed the High-Fidelity Simulation Satisfaction Reduced Scale for Students based on 25 questions and six factors, with a total score between 0 and 125. In total, 91 simulation sessions were performed among students who had different degrees of clinical and previous experience with simulation as well as standardized patient versus advanced simulator. A bivariate analysis was performed, comparing the total scores and the different subscales by sex, previous experience, academic year, and simulation methodology. Linear regression was used for both bivariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The mean scale score was 116.8 (SD=7.44). The factor with the highest score was "F2: feedback or subsequent reflection", with a mean score of 14.71 (SD=0.73) out of 15. Fourth year students scored the highest (mean=119.17; SD=5.28). Students who underwent simulation training with a simulated patient actor presented a higher level of overall satisfaction (p<0.05) (Mean=120.31; SD=4.91), compared to students who used an advanced simulator (Mean=118.11; SD=5.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with the simulation program was higher in fourth-year students compared to first-year students and was also higher when a simulated patient actor was used compared to an advanced simulator. The most highly valued aspect was the subsequent debriefing or reflective process.

Effect of clinical decision rules, patient cost and malpractice information on clinician brain CT image ordering: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The frequency of head computed tomography (CT) imaging for mild head trauma patients has raised safety and cost concerns. Validated clinical decision rules exist in the published literature and on-line sources to guide medical image ordering but are often not used by emergency department (ED) clinicians. Using simulation, we explored whether the presentation of a clinical decision rule (i.e. Canadian CT Head Rule - CCHR), findings from malpractice cases related to clinicians not ordering CT imaging in mild head trauma cases, and estimated patient out-of-pocket cost might influence clinician brain CT ordering. Understanding what type and how information may influence clinical decision making in the ordering advanced medical imaging is important in shaping the optimal design and implementation of related clinical decision support systems.

Methods

Multi-center, double-blinded simulation-based randomized controlled trial. Following standardized clinical vignette presentation, clinicians made an initial imaging decision for the patient. This was followed by additional information on decision support rules, malpractice outcome review, and patient cost; each with opportunity to modify their initial order. The malpractice and cost information differed by assigned group to test the any temporal relationship. The simulation closed with a second vignette and an imaging decision.

Results

One hundred sixteen of the 167 participants (66.9%) initially ordered a brain CT scan. After CCHR presentation, the number of clinicians ordering a CT dropped to 76 (45.8%), representing a 21.1% reduction in CT ordering (P = 0.002). This reduction in CT ordering was maintained, in comparison to initial imaging orders, when presented with malpractice review information (p = 0.002) and patient cost information (p = 0.002). About 57% of clinicians changed their order during study, while 43% never modified their imaging order.

Conclusion

This study suggests that ED clinician brain CT imaging decisions may be influenced by clinical decision support rules, patient out-of-pocket cost information and findings from malpractice case review.

Trial registration

NCT03449862, February 27, 2018, Retrospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-018-0602-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.