Natsuki Nakayama1, Harumi Ejiri2, Naoko Arakawa2, Tsuneko Makino2. 1. Department of Integrated Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. 2. Department of Nursing, College of Life and Health Sciences, Chubu University, Kasugai, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of high-fidelity simulation practice as an educational tool is becoming increasingly prevalent in nursing education. Despite the learning effects of simulation practice, students have been shown to experience high levels of stress and anxiety during simulation. In recent years, peer learning has been defined as an acquisition of knowledge and skills through active support and support among equal or equal peers and has been shown to be an effective educational intervention for clinical health science students. AIM: The purpose of this study was to incorporate peer learning into simulation learning and to clarify the differences between stress and anxiety during personal and peer simulations. METHOD: Third-grade undergraduate students in a four-year course at two nursing universities participated in this study. In this study, the simulated patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer. The scenario was that the patient had completely recovered consciousness in the operating room, and his tracheal tube had been removed one hour before the students examined him. Stress while simulation training was evaluated with heart rate variability. Anxiety was evaluated by the STAI after the simulations were complete. RESULTS: Personal simulation practice (personal group; n = 50) and peer simulation practice (peer group, n = 59) was conducted. The personal group included 7 male students, and the peer group included 12 male students; the difference in male proportion was not significant. At the first patient assessment phase, stress of heart rate variability components at the peer group significantly increased relative to that of the personal. In addition, the personal had a significantly higher state anxiety score after simulation than the peer. CONCLUSION: This study shows that in the face-to-face scene involving vital sign measurements, the presence of peers did not objectively alleviate stress.
BACKGROUND: The use of high-fidelity simulation practice as an educational tool is becoming increasingly prevalent in nursing education. Despite the learning effects of simulation practice, students have been shown to experience high levels of stress and anxiety during simulation. In recent years, peer learning has been defined as an acquisition of knowledge and skills through active support and support among equal or equal peers and has been shown to be an effective educational intervention for clinical health science students. AIM: The purpose of this study was to incorporate peer learning into simulation learning and to clarify the differences between stress and anxiety during personal and peer simulations. METHOD: Third-grade undergraduate students in a four-year course at two nursing universities participated in this study. In this study, the simulated patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer. The scenario was that the patient had completely recovered consciousness in the operating room, and his tracheal tube had been removed one hour before the students examined him. Stress while simulation training was evaluated with heart rate variability. Anxiety was evaluated by the STAI after the simulations were complete. RESULTS: Personal simulation practice (personal group; n = 50) and peer simulation practice (peer group, n = 59) was conducted. The personal group included 7 male students, and the peer group included 12 male students; the difference in male proportion was not significant. At the first patient assessment phase, stress of heart rate variability components at the peer group significantly increased relative to that of the personal. In addition, the personal had a significantly higher state anxiety score after simulation than the peer. CONCLUSION: This study shows that in the face-to-face scene involving vital sign measurements, the presence of peers did not objectively alleviate stress.