Assessing two different simulation methods to train nursing students in stoma care skills: A randomized controlled study

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 NURSING

Nurse Education in Practice Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-25 DOI:10.1016/j.nepr.2026.104843

Ezgi Arslan, Havva Yönem Amaç, Sultan Özkan

{"title":"Assessing two different simulation methods to train nursing students in stoma care skills: A randomized controlled study","authors":"Ezgi Arslan, Havva Yönem Amaç, Sultan Özkan","doi":"10.1016/j.nepr.2026.104843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>This study aimed to compare the effects of education using hybrid simulation (HS) and medium fidelity simulation (MFS) on nursing students’ care skills and simulation experience satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Background</h3><div>Technological advances have expanded the use of simulation-based approaches in nursing skills education. However, evidence remains limited regarding how different simulation modalities support structured stoma care skills.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>This is a two-arm parallel-group randomized-controlled trial.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The study was conducted between April and November 2025 with nursing students (<em>n</em> = 98). The study outcomes were evaluated using the Descriptive Form, the Basic Information Form, the Stoma Care Skill Rubric and the Simulation Experience Satisfaction Scale. The participants were divided into two groups of 49 students each: hybrid simulation (HS) and medium fidelity simulation (MFS). Students in the HS group received simulation training with a standard patient wearing a wearable ostomy model developed for this research; those in the MFS group trained with an inanimate mannequin with a stoma.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There was no significant difference in simulation experience satisfaction level between the HS (4.57 ± 0.40) and the MFS (4.59 ± 0.38) groups. However, the stoma care skill of the students in the HS group (40.24 ± 3.80) was higher than that of the MFS group (35.78 ± 5.53).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both simulation-based teaching methods examined had no significant effect on nursing students’ satisfaction levels; however, the HS group demonstrated higher care skills than the MFS group. HS using wearable models could serve as a cost-effective alternative in educational scenarios.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48715,"journal":{"name":"Nurse Education in Practice","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 104843"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nurse Education in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471595326001459","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

This study aimed to compare the effects of education using hybrid simulation (HS) and medium fidelity simulation (MFS) on nursing students’ care skills and simulation experience satisfaction.

Background

Technological advances have expanded the use of simulation-based approaches in nursing skills education. However, evidence remains limited regarding how different simulation modalities support structured stoma care skills.

Design

This is a two-arm parallel-group randomized-controlled trial.

Methods

The study was conducted between April and November 2025 with nursing students (n = 98). The study outcomes were evaluated using the Descriptive Form, the Basic Information Form, the Stoma Care Skill Rubric and the Simulation Experience Satisfaction Scale. The participants were divided into two groups of 49 students each: hybrid simulation (HS) and medium fidelity simulation (MFS). Students in the HS group received simulation training with a standard patient wearing a wearable ostomy model developed for this research; those in the MFS group trained with an inanimate mannequin with a stoma.

Results

There was no significant difference in simulation experience satisfaction level between the HS (4.57 ± 0.40) and the MFS (4.59 ± 0.38) groups. However, the stoma care skill of the students in the HS group (40.24 ± 3.80) was higher than that of the MFS group (35.78 ± 5.53).

Conclusion

Both simulation-based teaching methods examined had no significant effect on nursing students’ satisfaction levels; however, the HS group demonstrated higher care skills than the MFS group. HS using wearable models could serve as a cost-effective alternative in educational scenarios.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估两种不同的模拟方法来训练护理学生的造口护理技能：一项随机对照研究。

目的：比较混合模拟（HS）与中等保真度模拟（MFS）教学对护生护理技能和模拟体验满意度的影响。背景：技术进步扩大了基于模拟的护理技能教育方法的使用。然而，关于不同模拟模式如何支持结构化造口护理技能的证据仍然有限。设计：这是一项双臂平行组随机对照试验。方法：研究于2025年4月~ 11月在护理专业学生中进行（n = 98）。采用描述表、基本信息表、造口护理技能量表和模拟体验满意度量表对研究结果进行评估。参与者被分为两组，每组49人：混合模拟（HS）和中等保真度模拟（MFS）。HS组学生接受模拟训练，标准患者佩戴为本研究开发的可穿戴造口模型；那些在MFS组的人用一个有气孔的无生命的人体模型训练。结果：HS组（4.57 ± 0.40）与MFS组（4.59 ± 0.38）在模拟体验满意度上无显著差异。HS组学生的造口护理技能（40.24 ± 3.80）高于MFS组（35.78 ± 5.53）。结论：两种模拟教学方式对护生满意度均无显著影响；然而，HS组比MFS组表现出更高的护理技能。使用可穿戴模型的HS可以作为教育场景中具有成本效益的替代方案。

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

Nurse Education in Practice NURSING-

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

9.40%

发文量

180

审稿时长

51 days

期刊介绍： Nurse Education in Practice enables lecturers and practitioners to both share and disseminate evidence that demonstrates the actual practice of education as it is experienced in the realities of their respective work environments. It is supportive of new authors and will be at the forefront in publishing individual and collaborative papers that demonstrate the link between education and practice.