Efficacy of High-Fidelity Patient Simulation in Nursing Education: Research Protocol of ‘S4NP’ Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Angelo DanteEmail author
  • Carmen La Cerra
  • Valeria Caponnetto
  • Ilaria Franconi
  • Elona Gaxhja
  • Cristina Petrucci
  • Loreto Lancia
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 804)


High-Fidelity Patient Simulation is defined as a replicated clinical experience in a controlled learning environment that closely represents reality. This learning method creates the opportunity for students to gain specific and fundamental clinical skills in a controlled, safe, and forgiving environment. Even though the available evidence shows the impact of High-Fidelity Patient Simulation in improving nursing students’ learning objectives, several reasons do not allow confirming its effectiveness. Many studies show weakness in validity and reliability due to the low quality of study design, inadequate sample size and/or convenience sample recruitment. Furthermore, most studies appear uneven in research methods and unstable in outcome measurements. Finally, little is known about learning outcome retention. Therefore, high-level studies are required to strongly confirm the impact of High-Fidelity Patient Simulation on students’ learning outcomes, especially on long-term retention, and on patients’ advantages. This trial project, called S4NP (Simulation for Nursing Practice), was designed to confirm if the nursing students’ exposure to complementary training based on High-Fidelity Patient Simulation could produce long-term beneficial effects on learning outcomes compared to the traditional training program.


High Fidelity Simulation Training Nursing students Learning outcomes Clinical trial 


  1. 1.
    Lewis, R., Strachan, A., Smith, M.M.: Is high fidelity simulation the most effective method for the development of non-technical skills in nursing? A review of the current evidence. Open Nurs. J. 6, 82–89 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cant, R.P., Cooper, S.J.: Simulation-based learning in nurse education: systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 66(1), 3–15 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Helyer, R., Dickens, P.: Progress in the utilization of high-fidelity simulation in basic science education. J. Adv. Nurs. 40(2), 143–144 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cannon-Diehl, M.R.: Simulation in healthcare and nursing: state of the science. Crit. Care Nurs. Q. 32(2), 128–136 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Decker, S., Sportsman, S., Puetz, L., Billings, L.: The evolution of simulation and its contribution to competency. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 39(2), 74–80 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrucci, C., La Cerra, C., Caponnetto, V., Franconi, I., Gaxhja, E., Rubbi, I., Lancia, L.: Literature-based analysis of the potentials and the limitations of using simulation in nursing education. In: Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, pp. 57–64. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pittman, O.A.: The use of simulation with advanced practice nursing students. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 24(9), 516–520 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yuan, H.B., Williams, B.A., Fang, J.B., Ye, Q.H.: A systematic review of selected evidence on improving knowledge and skills through high-fidelity simulation. Nurse Educ. Today 32(3), 294–298 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vincent, M.A., Sheriff, S., Mellott, S.: The efficacy of high-fidelity simulation on psychomotor clinical performance improvement of undergraduate nursing students. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 33(2), 78–84 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolf, Z.R., Hicks, R., Serembus, J.F.: Characteristics of medication errors made by students during the administration phase: a descriptive study. J. Prof. Nurs. 22(1), 39–51 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dante, A., Natolini, M., Graceffa, G., Zanini, A., Palese, A.: The effects of mandatory preclinical education on exposure to injuries as reported by Italian nursing students: a 15-year case–control, multicentre study. J. Clin. Nurs. 23(5–6), 900–904 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrucci, C., Alvaro, R., Cicolini, G., Cerone, M.P., Lancia, L.: Percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposures in nursing students: an Italian observational study. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 41(4), 337–343 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cicolini, G., Di Labio, L., Lancia, L.: Prevalence of biological exposure among nursing students: an observational study. Prof. Inf. 61(4), 217–222 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts, D., Greene, L.: The theatre of high-fidelity simulation education. Nurse Educ. Today 31(7), 694–698 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warren, J.N., Luctkar-Flude, M., Godfrey, C., Lukewich, J.: A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation-based education on satisfaction and learning outcomes in nurse practitioner programs. Nurse Educ. Today 46, 99–108 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Byrd, J.F., Pampaloni, F., Wilson, L.: Hybrid simulation. In: Human Simulation for Nursing and Health Professions, pp. 267–271. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haut, C., Fey, M.K., Akintade, B., Klepper, M.: Using high-fidelity simulation to teach acute care pediatric nurse practitioner students. J. Nurse Pract. 10(10), e87–e91 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scherer, Y.K., Bruce, S.A., Runkawatt, V.: A comparison of clinical simulation and case study presentation on nurse practitioner students’ knowledge and confidence in managing a cardiac event. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 4(1) (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kardong-Edgren, S.: Striving for higher levels of evaluation in simulation. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 6(6), e203–e204 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rutherford-Hemming, T.: Learning in simulated environments: effect on learning transfer and clinical skill acquisition in nurse practitioner students. J. Nurs. Educ. 51(7), 403–406 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shin, S., Park, J.-H., Kim, J.-H.: Effectiveness of patient simulation in nursing education: meta-analysis. Nurse Educ. Today 35(1), 176–182 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zulkosky, K.: Self-efficacy: a concept analysis. Nurs. Forum 44(2), 93–102 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perry, P.: Concept analysis: confidence/self-confidence. Nurs. Forum 46(4), 218–230 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robb, Y., Dietert, C.: Measurement of clinical performance of nurses: a literature review. Nurse Educ. Today 22(4), 293–300 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garside, J.R., Nhemachena, J.Z.: A concept analysis of competence and its transition in nursing. Nurse Educ. Today 33(5), 541–545 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunt, D.P.: The concept of knowledge and how to measure it. J. Intellect. Cap. 4(1), 100–113 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lancia, L., Petrucci, C., Giorgi, F., Dante, A., Cifone, M.G.: Academic success or failure in nursing students: results of a retrospective observational study. Nurse Educ. Today 33(12), 1501–1505 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dante, A., Petrucci, C., Lancia, L.: European nursing students’ academic success or failure: a post-Bologna Declaration systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 33(1), 46–52 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Department of Life, Health, and Environmental Sciences: Didactic regulation of Bachelor Degree in Nursing Science in academic year 2017/2018Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ronaldson, S., Adamson, J., Dyson, L., Torgerson, D.: Waiting list randomized controlled trial within a case-finding design: methodological considerations. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 20(5), 601–605 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cunningham, J.A., Kypri, K., McCambridge, J.: Exploratory randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of a waiting list control design. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 13(1), 150 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shrier, I., Steele, R.J., Verhagen, E., Herbert, R., Riddell, C.A., Kaufman, J.S.: Beyond intention to treat: what is the right question? Clin. Trials 11(1), 28–37 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sedgwick, P.: Intention to treat analysis versus per protocol analysis of trial data. BMJ 350, 681 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Kim, M.Y.: Statistical analysis of clinical trials. Semin. Nucl. Med. 40(5), 357–363 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 174 of 29 July 2003 - Supplement no. 123, (2003) Personal Data Protection Code - Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Dante
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carmen La Cerra
    • 1
  • Valeria Caponnetto
    • 1
  • Ilaria Franconi
    • 1
  • Elona Gaxhja
    • 1
  • Cristina Petrucci
    • 1
  • Loreto Lancia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health, Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of L’AquilaCoppito, L’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations