Advertisement

High-Fidelity Patient Simulation in Critical Care Area: A Methodological Overview

  • Carmen La CerraEmail author
  • Angelo Dante
  • 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)

Abstract

High-Fidelity Patient Simulation (HFPS) allows the nursing students’ immersion in a learning environment marked by complexity, dynamism, reality, and safety, connecting theory to practice. The increased use of the HFPS was also sustained by the beneficial impact that HFPS seems to produce on nursing students’ learning outcomes. However, available research is still conflicting, and several methodological issues do not allow achieving best-quality evidence. To analyse the impact of the HFPS on nursing students’ learning outcomes in critical care area, a methodological overview of the studies included in a systematic review was conducted. Heterogeneity about the geographic area, methods, simulation techniques, and control approaches was pointed out. However, studies based on cardiocirculatory scenarios showed the highest standardization of methods and assessment tools. The development and application of shared guidelines derived from adequately-sampled randomized controlled trials are expected to demonstrate the high-fidelity simulation to be a valuable adjunct to the traditional training program.

Keywords

Simulation Nursing Education Nursing students Systematic review Methodological overview 

References

  1. 1.
    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, Cham 2017, pp. 57–64. Springer International Publishing (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Elq, A.H.: Simulation-based medical teaching and learning. J. Fam. Community Med. 17(1), 35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weller, J.M.: Simulation in undergraduate medical education: bridging the gap be-tween theory and practice. Med. Educ. 38(1), 32–38 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Cicolini, G., Di Labio, L., Lancia, L.: Prevalence of biological exposure among nursing students: an observational study. Prof. Inferm. 61(4), 217–222 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01301.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Department of Health: Didactic regulation of Bachelor degree in Nursing Science 2017/2018 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kneebone, R., Nestel, D., Vincent, C., Darzi, A.: Complexity, risk and simulation in learning procedural skills. Med. Educ. 41(8), 808–814 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon, J.A., Wilkerson, W.M., Shaffer, D.W., Armstrong, E.G.: “Practicing” medicine without risk: students’ and educators’ responses to high-fidelity patient simulation. Acad. Med. 76(5), 469–472 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeffries, P.R.: A framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating: simulations used as teaching strategies in nursing. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 26(2), 96–103 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kardong-Edgren, S., Adamson, K.A., Fitzgerald, C.: A review of currently published evaluation instruments for human patient simulation. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 6(1), e25–e35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nehring, W.M.: US boards of nursing and the use of high-fidelity patient simulators in nursing education. J. Prof. Nurs. 24(2), 109–117 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cant, R.P., Cooper, S.J.: Simulation-based learning in nurse education: systematic review. J. Adv. Nurse 66(1), 3–15 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  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.
    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
  17. 17.
    Newell, D.J.: Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int. J. Epidemiol. 21(5), 837–841 (1992)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), 1–14 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgins, J.P., Green, S.: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, vol. 4. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Group, P.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6(7), e1000097 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krippendorff, K.: Agreement and information in the reliability of coding. Commun. Methods Meas. 5(2), 93–112 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson, R., Ameratunga, S., Broad, J., Connor, J., Lethaby, A., Robb, G., Wells, S., Glasziou, P., Heneghan, C.: The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. ACP J. Club 144(2), A8–A11 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davies, R.: The Bologna process: the quiet revolution in nursing higher education. Nurse Educ. Today 28(8), 935–942 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Millberg, L.G., Berg, L., Lindström, I., Petzäll, K., Öhlén, J.: Tensions related to implementation of postgraduate degree projects in specialist nursing education. Nurse Educ. Today 31(3), 283–288 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T.: Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 47(11), 1451–1458 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cant, R.P., Cooper, S.J.: The value of simulation-based learning in pre-licensure nurse education: a state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ. Pract. 27, 45–62 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen La Cerra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angelo Dante
    • 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’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations