| Literature DB >> 36082061 |
Ying Wang1, Huifang Xu1.
Abstract
In order to explore the effect of competence-oriented simulated teaching training on vocational theory, practice ability, learning effect, and postcompetence of nursing staff, a total of 107 inservice nursing staff in our hospital from January 2021 to September 2021 are selected and analyzed. They are divided into traditional group and simulated teaching group and received traditional explanation and demonstration training and ability oriented simulated teaching training, respectively. The experimental results show that the scores of vocational theory, practical operation ability, learning effect, and Competency Inventory for Registered Nurse (CIRN) of the simulated teaching group are significantly higher than those of traditional group. It is clearly evident that the competence-oriented simulation teaching method is beneficial to improve the professional theoretical level and practical ability of nursing staff. Also, the training method can improve the comprehensive learning ability and job competence.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36082061 PMCID: PMC9433199 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9505764
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Occupational theory scores at different time points ( ± s).
| Group | Time point | Career theory results |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation teaching group ( | T1 | 53.52 ± 3.54 |
| T2 | 80.52 ± 4.34 | |
| T3 | 91.23 ± 5.63 | |
| Traditional group ( | T1 | 53.49 ± 3.23 |
| T2 | 67.52 ± 4.43 | |
| T3 | 82.26 ± 5.35 | |
|
| 433.515 | |
|
| <0.001 | |
|
| 514.322 | |
|
| <0.001 |
Figure 1Changes of vocational theory scores at different time points.
Practical operation results at different time points ( ± s).
| Group | Time point | Practice performance |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation teaching group ( | T1 | 54.56 ± 2.23 |
| T2 | 81.55 ± 3.32 | |
| T3 | 92.24 ± 4.83 | |
| Traditional group ( | T1 | 54.53 ± 2.19 |
| T2 | 72.32 ± 3.23 | |
| T3 | 87.43 ± 3.44 | |
|
| 423.511 | |
|
| <0.001 | |
|
| 543.353 | |
|
| <0.001 |
Figure 2Variation of practical operation results at different time points.
Score of learning effect at different time points ( ± s).
| Group | Time point | Learning effect score |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation teaching group ( | T1 | 48.23 ± 3.11 |
| T2 | 75.63 ± 4.12 | |
| T3 | 89.53 ± 4.44 | |
| Traditional group ( | T1 | 48.19 ± 3.09 |
| T2 | 64.43 ± 4.02 | |
| T3 | 78.35 ± 4.32 | |
|
| 413.453 | |
|
| <0.001 | |
|
| 512.544 | |
|
| <0.001 |
Figure 3Changes in learning effect scores at different time points.
Comparison of training satisfaction differences (n, %).
| Divide into groups | Example number | Very satisfied | Satisfied | Just like | Discontent | Degree of satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional group | 53 | 13 | 18 | 21 | 1 | 31 |
| Simulation teaching group | 54 | 49 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 52 |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | 11.247 |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | 0.016 |
Changes of postcompetency scores at different time points ( ± s).
| Group | Time point | Job competency score |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation teaching group ( | T1 | 138.23 ± 23.55 |
| T2 | 165.63 ± 30.34 | |
| T3 | 199.53 ± 42.44 | |
| Traditional group ( | T1 | 138.17 ± 23.47 |
| T2 | 154.43 ± 27.24 | |
| T3 | 178.83 ± 37.34 | |
|
| 465.456 | |
|
| <0.001 | |
|
| 512.544 | |
|
| <0.001 |
Figure 4Changes of postcompetency score at different time points.