Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.28(2) > 1076384

TOOLS
Koh and Hur: Effects of Simulation-based Training for Basic Life Support Utilizing Video-assisted Debriefing on Non-Technical and Technical Skills of Nursing Students
Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2016;28(2):169-179.

Published online: April 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2016.28.2.169

Effects of Simulation-based Training for Basic Life Support Utilizing Video-assisted Debriefing on Non-Technical and Technical Skills of Nursing Students

Jin Hwa Koh1, Hea Kung Hur2

1Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju

2Department of Nursing, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea

Corresponding author: Hur, Hea Kung Department of Nursing, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, 20 Ilsan-ro, Wonju 26426, Korea. Tel: +82-33-741-0384, Fax: +82-33743-9490, E-mail: hhk0384@yonsei.ac.kr

Received 1 February 20164 April 2016       Accepted 18 April 2016

Copyright © 2016 Korean Society of Adult Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of simulation-based training (SBT) for basic life support (BLS) utilizing video-assisted debriefing (VAD) about non-technical skills (NTSs) and technical skills (TSs). The goal of the proposed study is the evaluation of a teaching method about the correct application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Methods

The study design was a control group pre-and post-test non-synchronized experimental design. The sample included twelve teams of 36 nursing students. Both the experimental and the control groups received the SBT for BLS. Only the experimental groups received VAD where as the control groups had a verbal debriefing. Raters who used checklists for TSs and NTSs evaluated both groups. Data were analyzed by the SPSS 20.0 using Cronbach's ⍺, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Mann-Whitney U test and Willcoxon signed rank test.

Results

The experimental groups scored higher than the control groups in both TSs (p=.004) and the NTSs (p=.008).

Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that NTSs are an important factor that lead CPR successfully, so VAD can be used as an efficient teaching-learning strategy in the SBT for BLS for nursing students and nurses.

Keywords: Video-assisted debriefing, Simulation-based training for basic life support, Non-technical skills, Technical skills

REFERENCES

1.Holmberg M., Holmberg S., Herlitz J. Effect of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients in Sweden. Resuscitation. 2000. 47:59–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9572(00)00199-4.
2.Kim DH., Lee YJ., Hwang MS., Park JH., Kim HS., Cha HG. Effects of a simulation-based integrated clinical practice program (SICPP) on the problem solving process, Clinical competence and critical thinking in a nursing student. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2012. 18(3):499–509.
3.Field JM., Hazinski MF., Sayre MR., Chameides M., Schexnayder MR., Hemphill R, et al. Part 1: executive summary of 2010 AHA guidelines for CPR and ECC. Circulation. 2010. 122(3):S640–56.
4.Korea Association of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Common cardiopulmonary resuscitation guideline development and distribution [Internet]. Seoul: Korea Association of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation;2011. [cited 2015 January 1]. Available from:. http://www.kacpr.org/popup/file/2011_guidelines.pdf.
5.Flowerdew L., Brown R., Vincent C., Woloshynowych M. Development and validation of a tool to assess emergency physicians'non-technical skills. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2012. 59(5):376–85. .e4.
6.Agency for Healthcare Research Quality. Strategies and tools to enhance performance and patient safety [Internet]. U.S.: Department of Health and Human Services;2009. [cited 2015 January 1]. Available from:. http://teamstepps.ahrq.gov/index.htm. accessed April 2011).
7.Cooper S., Cant R., Porter J., Missen K., Sparkes L., McConnell-Henry T, et al. Managing patient deterioration: assessing teamwork and individual performance. Emergency Medical Journal. 2013. 30(5):377–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2012-201312.
crossref
8.Walkera S., Brettb S., McKayc A., Lambdend S., Vincente C., Sev-dalise N. Observational Skill-based Clinical Assessment tool for Resuscitation (OSCAR): development and validation. Resuscitation. 2011. 82:835–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.03.009.
crossref
9.Andersen PO., Jensen MK., Lippert A., Østergaard D., Klausenb TW. Development of a formative assessment tool for measurement of performance in multi-professional resuscitation teams. Resuscitation. 2010. 81:703–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.01.034.
crossref
10.Judy JR. Catherine B. Facilitated debriefing. Wendy MN, Fe-lissa RL, editors. High-fidelity patient simulation in nursing education. Sudbury MA: Jones and Bartlett;2008. p. 369–85.
11.Scherer LA., Chang MC., Meredith JW., Battistella FD. Videotape review leads to rapid and sustained learning. American Journal of Surgery. 2003. 185(6):516–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00062-X.
crossref
12.Boet S., Bould D., Bruppacher HR., Desjardins F., Chandra DB., Naik VN. Looking in the mirror: self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crisis. Critical Care Medicine. 2011. 39(6):1377–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820eb8be.
13.Sanborn DE., Pyke HF., Sanborn CJ. Videotape playback and psychotherapy: a review. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice. 1975. 12(2):179–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0086424.
crossref
14.Rogers A. Videotape feedback in group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy; Theory, Research, and Practice. 1985. 5:37–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0088647.
crossref
15.Newby T., Stepich D., Lehman J., Russell J. Instructional technology for teaching and learning. USA: Prentice-Hall Inc;2000.
16.Park IH. The effects of video-aided feedback in pre and post operative nursing simulation practice. [master's thesis]. Asan: Soonchunhyang University;2013.
17.Kim JY. Development of a scenario of simulation and analysis of the effect of debriefing. [master's thesis]. Sungnam: Eulji University;2012.
18.Grant J., Moss J., Epps C., Watts P. Using video-facilitated feedback to improve student performance following high-fidelity simulation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2010. 6(5):e177–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2009.09.001.
crossref
19.Roh YS., Kelly M., Ha EH. Comparison of instructor-led versus peer-led debriefing in nursing students. Nursing and Health Sciences. 2016. 18(2):238–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12259.
crossref
20.Nadler I., Sanderson P., Van Dyken C., Davis P., Liley H. Presenting video recordings of newborn resuscitation in debriefing for teamwork training. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2010. 20(2):1639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.043547.
21.Cooper S., Bogossian FE. Managing patient deterioration: enhancing nurses' competence through face-to-face and web based simulation techniques. 3rd ed.Melbourne: Victoria;2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2012-201312.
22.Luctkar-Flude M., Baker C., Pulling C., Mcgraw R., Dagnone D., Medves J, et al. Evaluating an undergraduate interprofessional simulation based educational module: communication, teamwork, and confidence performing cardiac resuscitation skills. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2010. 1:59–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S14100.
23.Pucher PH., Aggarwal R., Singh P., Srisatkunam T., Twaij A., Darzi A. Ward simulation to improve surgical ward round performance. Annals of Surgery. 2014. 260(2):236–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000557.
crossref
24.Jung JS., Hur HK. Effectiveness and retention of repeated simulation-based basic life support training for nursing students. Journal of Korean Critical Care Nursing. 2013. 6(2):24–36.
25.Richard HR. Manual of simulation in healthcare. Korean Society for Simulation in Healthcare, translator. Seoul: Yedang;2010.
26.Dufrene C., Young A. Successful debriefing-best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: a literature review. Nurse Education Today. 2014. 34(3):372–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.06.026.
27.Bowden T., Rowlands A., Buckwell M., Abbott S. Web-based video and feedback in the teaching of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Nurse Education Today. 2011. 32(4):443–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.04.003.
crossref
28.Kardong-Edgren SE., Starkweather AR., Ward LD. The integration of simulation into a clinical foundations of nursing course: student and faculty perspectives. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship. 2008. 5(1):1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1548-923X.1603.
crossref
29.Kim JR. English teaching and learning model development using interactive white boards. Korean Journal of Teacher Education. 2009. 25(1):109–41.
30.Andersen PO., Jensen MK., Lippert A., Osterggard D. Identifying non-technical skills and barriers for improvement of teamwork in cardiac arrest teams. Resuscitation. 2010. 81:695–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.01.024.
crossref

Figure 1.
Flow chart of study process.
kjan-28-169f1.tif
Table 1.
Homogeneity Test of Dependent Variables
Variables Exp. (n=6) Cont. (n=6) U p
M±SD M±SD
Non-technical skills 10.67±4.97 19.67±6.50 -2.70 .003
Leadership 2.33±2.07 4.00±1.41 -1.62 .134
Teamwork 7.17±2.40 10.17±4.96 -1.33 .212
Task management 1.17±1.17 5.50±0.55 -2.93 .003
Technical skills 27.83±8.42 30.33±6.02 -0.32 .720
Check unresponsiveness 3.10±0.75 3.67±0.81 -1.82 .110
Call for help 2.00±1.41 2.17±1.60 -0.17 .891
Check pulse 1.67±1.96 2.50±1.22 -0.59 .551
Chest compression 9.67±2.06 11.33±1.50 -0.25 .812
Ventilation 4.33±2.25 5.17±1.16 -0.68 .518
Defibrillation 3.33±2.65 2.67±2.06 -0.33 .711
Recheck circulation 0.67±0.81 0.67±1.63 -0.86 .420
Integrity 2.33±1.86 2.17±1.32 -0.17 .862

Exp.=Experimental group; Cont.=Control group.

Table 2.
Effects of Basic Life Support Simulation Training Using Video-assisted Debriefing on Non-technical Skills (N=12)
Variables Groups Pretest Posttest Pre-Post Mean difference
M±SD U (p) M±SD U (p) Z (p) M±SD U (p)
Non-technical skills Exp. 10.67±4.97 -2.70 (.003) 40.17±1.84 -3.36 (.001) -2.20 (.029) -29.50±3.62 -2.65 (.008)
Cont. 19.67±6.50   28.00±8.67   -2.03 (.045) -8.33±10.05
Leadership Exp. 2.33±2.07 -1.62 (.134) 7.17±0.41 -3.02 (.002) -2.68 (.033) -3.08±2.43 -2.53 (.021)
Cont. 4.00±1.41   5.33±0.82   -1.63 (.129) -1.33±1.63
Teamwork Exp. 7.17±2.40 -1.33 (.212) 25.00±1.55 -2.83 (.018) -2.98 (.021) -12.58±7.32 -2.01 (.007)
Cont. 10.17±4.96   17.50±6.32   -2.00 (.008) -7.33±7.03
Task management Exp. 1.17±1.17 -2.93 (.003) 8.00±0.00 -2.68 (.006) -2.05 (.009) -3.25±4.05 -2.90 (.003)
Cont. 5.50±0.55   5.17±1.94   -0.53 (.872) 0.33±1.96

Exp.=Experimental group; Cont.=Control group.

Table 3.
Effects of Basic Life Support Simulation Training Using Video-assisted Debriefing on Technical Skills (N=12)
Variables Groups Pretest Posttest Pre-Post Mean difference
M±SD U (p) M±SD U (p) Z (p) M±SD U (p)
Technical skills Exp. 27.83±8.42 -0.32 53.67±0.82 -2.69 -2.20 (.023) -25.83±8.52 -2.04
Cont. 30.33±6.02 (.720) 47.83±3.43 (.006) -2.20 (.022) -17.50±5.58 (.007)
Check unresponsiveness Exp. 3.10±0.75 -1.82 4.00±0.00 0.00 -2.07 (.035) -1.17±0.75 -1.82
Cont. 3.67±0.81 (.110) 4.00±0.00 (1.00) -1.00 (.365) -0.33±0.82 (.111)
Call for help Exp. 2.00±1.41 -0.17 4.00±0.00 0.00 -2.03 (.038) -2.00±1.41 -0.16
Cont. 2.17±1.60 (.891) 4.00±0.00 (1.00) -1.84 (.099) -1.83±1.60 (.894)
Check pulse Exp. 1.67±1.96 -0.59 3.67±0.52 -0.56 -1.76 (.117) -2.00±2.09 -0.89
Cont. 2.50±1.22 (.551) 3.50±0.55 (.560) -1.89 (.088) -1.00±1.11 (.398)
Chest compression Exp. 9.67±2.06 -0.25 13.33±0.52 -2.71 -2.21 (.019) -3.67±1.86 -2.02
Cont. 11.33±1.50 (.812) 12.00±0.63 (.003) -0.85 (.421) -0.67±1.86 (.045)
Ventilation Exp. 4.33±2.25 -0.68 5.67±0.52 -0.19 -1.41 (.221) -1.33±2.42 -0.54
Cont. 5.17±1.16 (.518) 5.50±0.84 (.881) -0.37 (.651) -0.33±1.51 (.555)
Defibrillation Exp. 3.33±2.65 -0.33 7.67±0.52 -1.39 -2.21 (.018) -4.33±2.42 -0.32
Cont. 2.67±2.06 (.711) 6.50±1.87 (.250) -2.02 (.041) -3.88±2.79 (.720)
Recheck circulation Exp. 0.67±0.81 -0.86 8.00±0.00 -2.29 -2.32 (.012) -7.33±0.81 -2.19
Cont. 0.67±1.63 (.420) 5.33±1.97 (.013) -2.21 (.021) -4.66±1.97 (.025)
Integrity Exp. 2.33±1.86 -0.17 7.33±0.52 -1.99 -2.21 (.019) -5.00±2.19 -2.19
Cont. 2.17±1.32 (.862) 6.00±1.67 (.049) -2.21 (.020) -3.83±2.04 (.025)

Exp.=Experimental group; Cont.=Control group.

TOOLS
Similar articles