Perceptions of students and educators regarding a once-off pre-clinical ICU simulation activity.

IF 1 Q4 REHABILITATION
Ronel Roos, Heleen van Aswegen, Daleen Casteleijn, Catherine H Thurling
{"title":"Perceptions of students and educators regarding a once-off pre-clinical ICU simulation activity.","authors":"Ronel Roos,&nbsp;Heleen van Aswegen,&nbsp;Daleen Casteleijn,&nbsp;Catherine H Thurling","doi":"10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physiotherapy skills such as suction and manual hyperinflation (MHI) are used to manage patients in intensive care. Performing these skills effectively and safely requires a level of expertise. It is unknown whether a once-off preclinical high-fidelity simulation activity incorporating these skills would translate to clinical practice inclusion.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine students' perceptions of a simulation-based education (SBE) activity and clinical educators' opinions of students' implementation of skills into practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Our study consisted of two parts: a retrospective record review of students' feedback with the Simulation Effectiveness Tool - Modified (SET-M) and the Simulation Laboratory Questionnaire. A nominal group technique (NGT) with clinical educators provided information on students' skills implementation. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six SBE sessions, lasting 3 hours each, with 49 students (<i>n</i> = 8-9 students per session) were undertaken. Students perceived the teaching activity positively. Five (33.33%) of 15 clinical educators participated in the NGT. Participants had a mean age of 35.8 (± 8.9) years, were qualified for 13.9 (± 8.9) years and had been supervising students for 7.8 (± 6.7) years. The clinical educators' top five opinions regarding students' implementation of the intensive care unit (ICU) skills were: handling skills improved, students had greater confidence performing these skills, students were more observant of a patient's response to the skill being performed, students had better theoretical knowledge and students had more accurate recall for precautions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical educators reported a change in students' clinical practice with regard to skills implementation.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>A once-off preclinical SBE activity influences students' ICU practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":44180,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9724079/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Physiotherapy skills such as suction and manual hyperinflation (MHI) are used to manage patients in intensive care. Performing these skills effectively and safely requires a level of expertise. It is unknown whether a once-off preclinical high-fidelity simulation activity incorporating these skills would translate to clinical practice inclusion.

Objectives: To determine students' perceptions of a simulation-based education (SBE) activity and clinical educators' opinions of students' implementation of skills into practice.

Method: Our study consisted of two parts: a retrospective record review of students' feedback with the Simulation Effectiveness Tool - Modified (SET-M) and the Simulation Laboratory Questionnaire. A nominal group technique (NGT) with clinical educators provided information on students' skills implementation. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken.

Results: Six SBE sessions, lasting 3 hours each, with 49 students (n = 8-9 students per session) were undertaken. Students perceived the teaching activity positively. Five (33.33%) of 15 clinical educators participated in the NGT. Participants had a mean age of 35.8 (± 8.9) years, were qualified for 13.9 (± 8.9) years and had been supervising students for 7.8 (± 6.7) years. The clinical educators' top five opinions regarding students' implementation of the intensive care unit (ICU) skills were: handling skills improved, students had greater confidence performing these skills, students were more observant of a patient's response to the skill being performed, students had better theoretical knowledge and students had more accurate recall for precautions.

Conclusion: Clinical educators reported a change in students' clinical practice with regard to skills implementation.

Clinical implications: A once-off preclinical SBE activity influences students' ICU practice.

学生和教育工作者对一次性临床前ICU模拟活动的看法。
背景:物理治疗技巧,如抽吸和手动恶性膨胀(MHI)被用于管理重症监护患者。有效和安全地执行这些技能需要一定程度的专业知识。目前尚不清楚是否一次性的临床前高保真模拟活动纳入这些技能将转化为临床实践纳入。目的:了解学生对模拟基础教育(SBE)活动的看法,以及临床教育工作者对学生将技能付诸实践的看法。方法:本研究由两部分组成:回顾性记录学生使用模拟有效性工具修正(SET-M)的反馈和模拟实验室问卷。一个名义小组技术(NGT)与临床教育者提供信息,学生的技能实施。进行描述性数据分析。结果:共进行了6次SBE治疗,每次治疗3小时,49名学生(n = 8-9名学生)。学生对教学活动的感知是积极的。15名临床教育工作者中有5名(33.33%)参加了NGT。参与者平均年龄为35.8(±8.9)岁,合格年龄为13.9(±8.9)岁,督导学生时间为7.8(±6.7)年。临床教育工作者对学生实施重症监护病房(ICU)技能的意见排名前五位的是:处理技能提高,学生对执行这些技能有更大的信心,学生对正在执行的技能更能观察病人的反应,学生有更好的理论知识,学生对预防措施的回忆更准确。结论:临床教育工作者报告了学生临床实践中技能实施方面的变化。临床意义:一次临床前SBE活动影响学生的ICU实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信