Antonia Blanié1,2,3,4, Michel-Ange Amorim5,6, Dan Benhamou7,8,5,6. 1. Centre de simulation LabForSIMS, Faculté de médecine Paris Saclay, 94275, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. antonia.blanie@aphp.fr. 2. Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, CHU Bicêtre, 78, rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. antonia.blanie@aphp.fr. 3. CIAMS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay, Cedex, France. antonia.blanie@aphp.fr. 4. CIAMS, Université d'Orléans, 45067, Orléans, France. antonia.blanie@aphp.fr. 5. CIAMS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay, Cedex, France. 6. CIAMS, Université d'Orléans, 45067, Orléans, France. 7. Centre de simulation LabForSIMS, Faculté de médecine Paris Saclay, 94275, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. 8. Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, CHU Bicêtre, 78, rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early detection and response to patient deterioration influence patient prognosis. Nursing education is therefore essential. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the respective educational value of simulation by gaming (SG) and a traditional teaching (TT) method to improve clinical reasoning (CR) skills necessary to detect patient deterioration. METHODS: In a prospective multicenter study, and after consent, 2nd year nursing students were randomized into two groups: Simulation by gaming "SG": the student played individually with a serious game consisting of 2 cases followed by a common debriefing with an instructor;Traditional Teaching "TT": the student worked on the same cases in text paper format followed by a traditional teaching course with a PowerPoint presentation by an instructor. CR skill was measured by script concordance tests (80 SCTs, score 0-100) immediately after the session (primary outcome) and on month later. Other outcomes included students' satisfaction, motivation and professional impact. RESULTS:One hundred forty-six students were randomized. Immediately after training, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 9 in SG group (n = 73) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 73) (p = 0.43). One month later, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 10 in SG group (n = 65) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 54) (p = 0.77). Global satisfaction and motivation were highly valued in both groups although significantly greater in the SG group (p < 0.05). The students declared that the training course would have a positive professional impact, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study assessing nursing student CR to detect patient deterioration, no significant educational difference (SCT), neither immediate nor 1 month later, was observed between training by SG and the TT course. However, satisfaction and motivation were found to be greater with the use of SG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03428269. Registered 30 january 2018.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Early detection and response to patient deterioration influence patient prognosis. Nursing education is therefore essential. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the respective educational value of simulation by gaming (SG) and a traditional teaching (TT) method to improve clinical reasoning (CR) skills necessary to detect patient deterioration. METHODS: In a prospective multicenter study, and after consent, 2nd year nursing students were randomized into two groups: Simulation by gaming "SG": the student played individually with a serious game consisting of 2 cases followed by a common debriefing with an instructor;Traditional Teaching "TT": the student worked on the same cases in text paper format followed by a traditional teaching course with a PowerPoint presentation by an instructor. CR skill was measured by script concordance tests (80 SCTs, score 0-100) immediately after the session (primary outcome) and on month later. Other outcomes included students' satisfaction, motivation and professional impact. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six students were randomized. Immediately after training, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 9 in SG group (n = 73) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 73) (p = 0.43). One month later, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 10 in SG group (n = 65) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 54) (p = 0.77). Global satisfaction and motivation were highly valued in both groups although significantly greater in the SG group (p < 0.05). The students declared that the training course would have a positive professional impact, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study assessing nursing student CR to detect patient deterioration, no significant educational difference (SCT), neither immediate nor 1 month later, was observed between training by SG and the TT course. However, satisfaction and motivation were found to be greater with the use of SG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03428269. Registered 30 january 2018.
Authors: Grace V Ryan; Shauna Callaghan; Anthony Rafferty; Mary F Higgins; Eleni Mangina; Fionnuala McAuliffe Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 5.428