Effects of the in Situ Simulation to Competencies in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Nursing Team.

Overview

Introduction: In situ simulation is a methodology that meets the concept of permanent education, since it allows learning from the context of practice and in the work environment itself. Objective: to compare the development of skills (knowledge and skills) for CPR between groups submitted to different in situ simulation periodicities, and to identify the level of confidence to participate in a CPR. Method: A randomized controlled, non-blind study comparing 3 periodicities of educational intervention performed by in situ simulation. This study will include nursing professionals from the nephrology department of a university hospital. The sample will be composed of 24 randomized participants in the groups, using opaque envelopes for each periodicity of training and professional category, being subdivided into 3 groups of periodicities with intervals of 2, 4 and 8 months. The instruments will evaluate the knowledge and skills in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the perception of preparation for performing the maneuvers.

Full Title of Study: “Effects of the Periodic Application of in Situ Simulation in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Randomized Controlled Trial.”

Study Type

  • Study Type: Interventional
  • Study Design
    • Allocation: Non-Randomized
    • Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
    • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
    • Masking: None (Open Label)
  • Study Primary Completion Date: November 2018

Detailed Description

The objective is to compare the development of skills (knowledge and skills) for CPR between groups submitted to different in situ simulation periodicities, and to identify the level of confidence to attend a CPR.

Interventions

  • Other: educational intervention
    • The simulation scenarios were constructed using the service environment, with real equipment and materials and a low fidelity mannequin. The interventions were not filmed, and the clinical cases elaborated were fictitious, with clear objectives and developed according to the context of the unit. The simulations took place during the working hours of the participants, with the expected duration of the 10 minutes (average) for the scenario, and the average duration of the debriefing was 10 minutes, which took place immediately after the simulation and in the same location of the scenario.

Arms, Groups and Cohorts

  • Active Comparator: 8-month intervals
    • Participants will be submitted to the educational intervention with in situ simulation every 8 months.
  • Active Comparator: 4-month intervals
    • Participants will be submitted to the educational intervention with in situ simulation every 4 months.
  • Active Comparator: 2-month intervals
    • Participants will be submitted to the educational intervention with in situ simulation every 2 months.

Clinical Trial Outcome Measures

Primary Measures

  • Average number of hits in the test of knowledge on cardiopulmonary resuscitation
    • Time Frame: up to eight months
    • Measurement of the average/median/standard deviation of hits in the questions of the knowledge test, in each group (A, B, C,). This measurement was performed in two moments: Pre and post initial intervention: measure performed to evaluate the impact of the initial intervention on the participants’ knowledge about the issue. After simulation intervention: measurement performed to evaluate the impact of the simulation intervention on the maintenance of knowledge, according to the periodicity group of intervention where the participant was allocated. The measurement was applied to all groups at the same moments. The following tests were used to make comparisons among groups: Wilcoxon Test; Estimate of the size of the Cohen’s d effect (paired data); Kruskal-Wallis Test – Dunn’s Post Hoc; Cohen’s d: Effect size measures by the ” Cohen’s d” method complemented by the Confidence Interval 95%.
  • Average number of hits in the accomplishment of a set of skills.
    • Time Frame: Group A was evaluated when receiving the intervention every eight months, group B every four months, and group C every two months.
    • To compare, among groups exposed to the periodicity of different interventions, the average/median/standard deviation of hits in the accomplishment of a set of skills that matches the CPR procedures. Group A was evaluated when receiving the intervention every eight months, group B every four months, and group C every two months. The Kruskal-Wallis Test was applied to compare the significance of the average outcomes among groups.
  • Average agreement in the preparation for CPR
    • Time Frame: up to eight months
    • To Measure the average/median/standard deviation, referring to the agreement level of preparation for the accomplishment of CPR, in order to check the impact of the intervention performed according to the periodicity of application. The following tests were used to make comparisons among groups: Wilcoxon Test; Estimate of the size of the Cohen’s d effect (paired data); Kruskal-Wallis Test – Dunn’s Post Hoc; Cohen’s d: Effect size measures by the “Cohen’s d” method complemented by the Confidence Interval 95%.

Participating in This Clinical Trial

Inclusion Criteria

  • They must be nurses and nursing technicians. Exclusion Criteria:

  • not complete the evaluations – be under 18 years old

Gender Eligibility: All

Minimum Age: 18 Years

Maximum Age: N/A

Are Healthy Volunteers Accepted: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Investigator Details

  • Lead Sponsor
    • Federal University of Health Science of Porto Alegre
  • Provider of Information About this Clinical Study
    • Principal Investigator: Cleidilene Ramos Magalhães, Principal Investigator – Federal University of Health Science of Porto Alegre

Clinical trials entries are delivered from the US National Institutes of Health and are not reviewed separately by this site. Please see the identifier information above for retrieving further details from the government database.

At TrialBulletin.com, we keep tabs on over 200,000 clinical trials in the US and abroad, using medical data supplied directly by the US National Institutes of Health. Please see the About and Contact page for details.