Effectiveness of low-fidelity versus high-fidelity interprofessional simulation on the acquisition of theoretical and practical knowledge of arterial blood gas testing: a parallel randomized controlled trial (ELVHIS-ABG-RCT) protocol.

Abstract

Background: Education in medical and nursing curricula aims to build a strong theoretical foundation and practical skills, essential for addressing the complex challenges of healthcare delivery. Interprofessional learning fosters teamwork and improves patient care by enhancing collaboration across disciplines. Simulation-based education provides a safe environment for critical thinking and interprofessional collaboration, particularly in procedures like arterial blood gas (ABG) testing. Despite its potential, research comparing low- and high-fidelity simulation in interprofessional contexts remains limited, presenting an opportunity to explore how different modalities impact knowledge and skills in healthcare education.

Methods: A single center, superiority, parallel, randomized controlled trial will compare the effectiveness of high-fidelity versus low-fidelity interprofessional simulation in improving knowledge and skills related to the ABG test among medical and nursing students. Participants will be assigned to either the intervention or control group. All participants will watch a 12-minute educational video on ABG, then be divided into small groups of six participants each, consisting of three medical and three nursing students. Students in the intervention group will participate in a high-fidelity simulation activity consisting of three clinical case scenarios conducted in an immersive medical training room with an actor simulating the patient and an ABG arm simulator for simulating the procedure. The control group will perform the same clinical case scenarios in a low-fidelity simulation room, using non-interactive paper-based documentation. The primary outcome will be the acquisition of theoretical knowledge and practical skills, assessed by independent observers using a six-item checklist during the simulation activities. Secondary outcomes will include self-efficacy, self-confidence in learning, interprofessional education, and satisfaction with the simulation experience, evaluated through validated questionnaires administered both before and after the intervention. The target sample size is 36 checklist observations.

Discussion: This study will contribute to interprofessional simulation-based practices by evaluating the effectiveness of high-fidelity versus low-fidelity interprofessional simulation, even for restricted clinical content. This may pave the way for a more structured and consistent implementation of high-fidelity interprofessional simulation, promoting their standardization and integration from the earliest stages of undergraduate curricula.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT06493188 2024/06/27).