No abstract

ObjectiveThe purpose was to analyse the effectiveness of high-fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) based on life-threatening clinical condition scenarios on undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students’ learning outcomes.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and its reporting was checked against the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, CINAHL with Full Text, Wiley Online Library and Web of Science were searched until July 2017. Author contact, reference and citation lists were checked to obtain additional references.Study selectionTo be included, available full-texts had to be published in English, French, Spanish or Italian and (a) involved undergraduate or postgraduate nursing students performing HFPS based on life-threatening clinical condition scenarios, (b) contained control groups not tested on the HFPS before the intervention, (c) contained data measuring learning outcomes such as performance, knowledge, self-confidence, self-efficacy or satisfaction measured just after the simulation session and (d) reported data for meta-analytic synthesis.Review methodThree independent raters screened the retrieved studies using a coding protocol to extract data in accordance with inclusion criteria.Synthesis methodFor each study, outcome data were synthesised using meta-analytic procedures based on random-effect model and computing effect sizes by Cohen’s d with a 95% CI.ResultsThirty-three studies were included. HFPS sessions showed significantly larger effects sizes for knowledge (d=0.49, 95% CI [0.17 to 0.81]) and performance (d=0.50, 95% CI [0.19 to 0.81]) when compared with any other teaching method. Significant heterogeneity among studies was detected.ConclusionsCompared with other teaching methods, HFPS revealed higher effects sizes on nursing students’ knowledge and performance. Further studies are required to explore its effectiveness in improving nursing students’ competence and patient outcomes.

Background In postgraduate intensive care nursing courses, high-fidelity simulation is useful to prepare students to guarantee safe and quality care of critically ill patients. Surprisingly, this issue has not attracted sufficient attention in the literature, and it is not clear whether the linear application of the traditional high-fidelity simulation method based on prebriefing, the simulation session and debriefing, can serve as empirical reference in postgraduate students’ education. The aim of this study was to investigate the lived experiences of postgraduate students receiving multiple exposures to an innovative high-fidelity simulation design based on Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory. Methods A phenomenological study was conducted at an Italian University involving a purposive sample of 15 nursing students attending the postgraduate intensive care course. Audio-recorded face-to-face in-depth interviews were held by a researcher in a dedicated room complemented with non-verbal communication outlined in the field notes. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcribed data. Results Three themes and ten categories were derived from the data analysis. The themes included pragmatic learning experience, the emotional path, and confidence. Conclusions Multiple exposure to high-fidelity simulation was lived as a pragmatic learning experience enhancing the students’ ability to apply theory into practice. This novel approach also contributed to the transition from negative to positive feelings and improved students’ confidence about technical and non-technical skills when caring for a critically ill patient.

Background: The best application modality of high-fidelity simulation in graduate critical care nursing courses is still rarely investigated in nursing research. This is an important issue since advanced nursing skills are necessary to effectively respond to critically ill patients’ care needs. The aim of the study was to examine the influence of a modified teaching model based on multiple exposures to high-fidelity simulations on both the learning outcomes and the perceptions of graduate students enrolled in a critical care nursing course. Methods: A multimethod study involving a sample of graduate critical care nursing students was conducted. A theoretical teaching model focused on multiple exposures to high-fidelity simulations is currently applied as a teaching method in an Italian critical care nursing course. According to the Kirkpatrick model for evaluating training programs, the performance, self-efficacy, and self-confidence in managing critically ill patients were considered learning outcomes, while satisfaction with learning and students’ lived experiences during the experimental phases were considered students’ perceptions. Results: Multiple exposures to high-fidelity simulations significantly improved performance, self-efficacy, and self-confidence in managing virtual critically ill patients’ care needs. The satisfaction level was high, while lived experiences of participants were positive and allowed for better explanation of quantitative results of this study. Conclusions: Multiple exposures to high-fidelity simulations can be considered a valuable teaching method that can improve the learning outcomes of graduate nurses enrolled in an intensive care course.

Axillary digital thermometers (ADTs) and non-contact (infrared) forehead thermometers (NCIFTs) are commonly used in pediatric settings, where an incorrect body temperature measurement may delay treatments or lead to incorrect diagnoses and therapies. Several studies comparing ADT or NCIFT with other methods have found conflicting results. To investigate whether ADT and NCIFT can be used interchangeably, a comparative observational study was conducted involving 205 children aged 0 to 14 years who were consecutively admitted to the pediatric emergency department. The Bland-Altman plot illustrated agreement between the two methods. A total of 217 pairs of measurements were compared; axillary measurements showed average values significantly higher than forehead measurements (37.52°C and 37.12°C; t = 7.42, p = .000), with a mean difference of 0.41°C between the two methods (range = -1.80 and +2.40). In this setting and population, ADT and NCIFT cannot be used interchangeably.