冷热汇报对本科护生劳动能力的影响:一项随机对照试验

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Fahad Zeed Alanezi PhD, MSc, RN , Robin Wagner DNP, APRN-CNS, CHSE , Benjamin Kelcey PhD, MA, BS , Caroline F. Morrison PhD, RN, CNL , Elaine Miller PhD, RN, CRRN, FAAN, FAHA
{"title":"冷热汇报对本科护生劳动能力的影响:一项随机对照试验","authors":"Fahad Zeed Alanezi PhD, MSc, RN ,&nbsp;Robin Wagner DNP, APRN-CNS, CHSE ,&nbsp;Benjamin Kelcey PhD, MA, BS ,&nbsp;Caroline F. Morrison PhD, RN, CNL ,&nbsp;Elaine Miller PhD, RN, CRRN, FAAN, FAHA","doi":"10.1016/j.ecns.2025.101768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Annually, there are over 290,000 in-hospital adult cardiac arrests in the United States. Basic Life Support (BLS) is essential in nursing simulation training, and effective debriefing enhances individual and team performance. “Hot” debriefing occurs shortly after simulation, while “Cold” debriefing happens after one-day. However, the optimal method for nursing students remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of hot versus cold debriefing on BLS competence and debriefing experience in undergraduate nursing students.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>A randomized controlled trial with 44 BLS-certified nursing students assigned to Hot (<em>n</em> = 22) or Cold (<em>n</em> = 22) debriefing groups. BLS competence was assessed using the American Heart Association BLS competency checklist, and the Debriefing Experience Scale measured debriefing experience.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both groups showed significant improvement in BLS competence from pre to post-test, with no statistical differences in competence or debriefing experience scores between methods.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While neither debriefing method proved superior, simulation with debriefing was beneficial. All students were BLS-certified, yet their mean baseline competence score was 10 out of 15, underscores the need for simulation-based BLS training in nursing curricula.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48753,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Simulation in Nursing","volume":"105 ","pages":"Article 101768"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of hot and cold debriefing on BLS competence in undergraduate nursing students: A randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Fahad Zeed Alanezi PhD, MSc, RN ,&nbsp;Robin Wagner DNP, APRN-CNS, CHSE ,&nbsp;Benjamin Kelcey PhD, MA, BS ,&nbsp;Caroline F. Morrison PhD, RN, CNL ,&nbsp;Elaine Miller PhD, RN, CRRN, FAAN, FAHA\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecns.2025.101768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Annually, there are over 290,000 in-hospital adult cardiac arrests in the United States. Basic Life Support (BLS) is essential in nursing simulation training, and effective debriefing enhances individual and team performance. “Hot” debriefing occurs shortly after simulation, while “Cold” debriefing happens after one-day. However, the optimal method for nursing students remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of hot versus cold debriefing on BLS competence and debriefing experience in undergraduate nursing students.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>A randomized controlled trial with 44 BLS-certified nursing students assigned to Hot (<em>n</em> = 22) or Cold (<em>n</em> = 22) debriefing groups. BLS competence was assessed using the American Heart Association BLS competency checklist, and the Debriefing Experience Scale measured debriefing experience.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both groups showed significant improvement in BLS competence from pre to post-test, with no statistical differences in competence or debriefing experience scores between methods.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While neither debriefing method proved superior, simulation with debriefing was beneficial. All students were BLS-certified, yet their mean baseline competence score was 10 out of 15, underscores the need for simulation-based BLS training in nursing curricula.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Simulation in Nursing\",\"volume\":\"105 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101768\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Simulation in Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876139925000854\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Simulation in Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876139925000854","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国,每年有超过290,000名住院成人心脏骤停。基本生命支持(BLS)在护理模拟训练中是必不可少的,有效的汇报可以提高个人和团队的表现。“热”汇报在模拟后不久进行,而“冷”汇报在一天后进行。然而,护理专业学生的最佳方法仍不清楚。本研究旨在比较冷热述职对本科护生劳动能力和述职经验的影响。方法对44名经bls认证的护生进行随机对照试验,将其分为热汇报组(n = 22)和冷汇报组(n = 22)。运用美国心脏协会劳工统计局胜任力检查表评估劳工统计局胜任力,用汇报经验量表衡量汇报经验。结果两组学生的BLS能力从测试前到测试后均有显著提高,两种方法在能力和汇报经验得分上无统计学差异。结论两种方法均不具有优势,但模拟与汇报是有益的。所有学生都通过了劳工统计局认证,但他们的平均基线能力得分为10分(满分15分),这强调了护理课程中基于模拟的劳工统计局培训的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effect of hot and cold debriefing on BLS competence in undergraduate nursing students: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Annually, there are over 290,000 in-hospital adult cardiac arrests in the United States. Basic Life Support (BLS) is essential in nursing simulation training, and effective debriefing enhances individual and team performance. “Hot” debriefing occurs shortly after simulation, while “Cold” debriefing happens after one-day. However, the optimal method for nursing students remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of hot versus cold debriefing on BLS competence and debriefing experience in undergraduate nursing students.

Method

A randomized controlled trial with 44 BLS-certified nursing students assigned to Hot (n = 22) or Cold (n = 22) debriefing groups. BLS competence was assessed using the American Heart Association BLS competency checklist, and the Debriefing Experience Scale measured debriefing experience.

Results

Both groups showed significant improvement in BLS competence from pre to post-test, with no statistical differences in competence or debriefing experience scores between methods.

Conclusion

While neither debriefing method proved superior, simulation with debriefing was beneficial. All students were BLS-certified, yet their mean baseline competence score was 10 out of 15, underscores the need for simulation-based BLS training in nursing curricula.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Clinical Simulation in Nursing is an international, peer reviewed journal published online monthly. Clinical Simulation in Nursing is the official journal of the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation & Learning (INACSL) and reflects its mission to advance the science of healthcare simulation. We will review and accept articles from other health provider disciplines, if they are determined to be of interest to our readership. The journal accepts manuscripts meeting one or more of the following criteria: Research articles and literature reviews (e.g. systematic, scoping, umbrella, integrative, etc.) about simulation Innovative teaching/learning strategies using simulation Articles updating guidelines, regulations, and legislative policies that impact simulation Leadership for simulation Simulation operations Clinical and academic uses of simulation.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信