Effect of Team Debriefing in Simulation-based Cardiac Arrest Emergency Nursing Education

SangJin Ko; Eun-Hee Choi

doi:10.7469/KJAN.2017.29.6.667

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.29(6) > 1076499

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Ko and Choi: Effect of Team Debriefing in Simulation-based Cardiac Arrest Emergency Nursing Education

Original Research

Korean J Adult Nurs 2017;29(6):667-676.

Published online: 18 December 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/KJAN.2017.29.6.667

Effect of Team Debriefing in Simulation-based Cardiac Arrest Emergency Nursing Education

SangJin Ko, RN, MSN¹, Eun-Hee Choi, Ph.D., RN^2,

^¹College of Nursing ․ Research Institute of Nursing Science, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

^²Department of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, Daegu, Korea

Corresponding author: Choi, Eun-Hee Department of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, 170 Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu 42415, Korea. Tel: +82-53-650-9388, Fax: +82-53-625-4705, E-mail: eh5472@ync.ac.kr

Received 30 September 20175 December 2017 Accepted 18 December 2017

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 aim of this study was to verify the effect of simulation and examine the effect of within-team debriefing for cardiac arrest emergency nursing education.

Methods

A non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental de-sign was used. The participants in this study were 199 senior nursing students from one nursing school in Daegu, Korea. Data were analyzed using x² test, t-test, Fisher's exact test with SPSS 22.0 program.

Results

Developed simulation protocol in this study increased the learning immersion (t=12.19, p<.001, t=5.07, p<.001), learning confidence (t=-10.36, p<.001, t=-5.99, p<.001) and clinical performance ability (t=-10.88, p<.001, t=-3.84, p=.002) among nursing students. In addition to this, learning immersion (t=2.66, p=.008), learning confidence (t=-2.78, p=.006), simulation satisfaction (t=-3.15, p=.002) and clinical performance (t=-3.02, p=.005) were sig-nificantly higher in the experiment group using within-team debriefing.

Conclusion

The results indicate that simulation using within-team debriefing was an effective educational method for nursing students.

Keywords: Simulation training, Emergency nursing, Education, Heart arrest

REFERENCES

1.Park SK., Cho KM., Jwa YK., Kang DW., Lee YJ. Survey of nurses' activities. Final report. Cheongju: Korea Health Industry De-velopment Institute;2014. December. Report No.: 11-1352000-. p. 001476–01.

2.You EY. Medical simulation. Journal of the Korean Medical Association. 2005. 48(3):267–76. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2005.48.3.267.

3.Ryoo EN., Ha EH., Cho JY. Comparison of learning effects using high-fidelity and multi-mode simulation: an application of emergency care for a patient with cardiac arrest. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2013. 43(2):185–93. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.2.185.

4.Stoker M., Burmester M., Allen M. Optimisation of simulated team training through the application of learning theories: a debate for a conceptual framework. BMC Medical Education. 2014. 14:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-69.

5.Kim YH., Jang KS. Effect of a simulation-based education on cardiopulmonary emergency care knowledge, clinical performance ability and problem solving process in new nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2011. 41(2):245–55. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2011.41.2.245.

6.Kim HW., Suh EY. Nursing students' immersion experience in a comprehensive simulation scenario using high fidelity hu-man patient simulator among nursing students: a phenom-enological study. Journal of Military Nursing Research. 2012. 30(1):89–99.

7.Kim JY., Kim EJ. Effects of simulation on nursing students' knowledge, clinical reasoning, and self-confidence: a quasi-ex-perimental study. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2015. 17(5):604–11. https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2015.27.5.604.

8.Yoo JH. Factors influencing nursing students' flow experience and clinical competency in simulation-based education-based on Jeffries's simulation model- [master's thesis]. Seoul: Sung-shin University;. 2016. 1–71.

9.Kim HR., Choi EY., Kang HY., Kim SM. The relationship among learning satisfaction, learning attitude, self-efficacy and the nursing students' academic achievement after simulation-based education on emergency nursing care. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2011. 17(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.5977/JKASNE.2011.17.1.005.

10.Ha EH., Song HS. The effects of structured self-debriefing using on the clinical competency, self efficacy and educational satisfaction in nursing students after simulation. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2015. 21(4):445–54. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2015.21.4.445.

11.Park SN., Chu MS., Hwang YY., Kim SH., Lee SK. Effects of in-tegrated nursing practice simulation-based training on stress, interest in learning and problem-solving ability of nursing students. The Korean Journal of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2015. 22(4):424–32. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2015.22.4.424.

12.Kim EJ., Lee KR., Lee MH., Kim J. Nurses' cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance during the first 5 minutes in in-situ simulated cardiac arrest. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2012. 42(3):361–8. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2012.42.3.361.

13.Kim SS., Kim BJ. Outcomes of in-hospital cardiopulmonary re-suscitation according to the in-hospital Utstein style in a gene-ral hospital. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2006. 11(2):177–92.

14.Hamilton R. Nurses' knowledge and skill retention following cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2005. 51(3):288–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03491.x.

15.Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. 2nd ed.New Jersey: Pearson Edu-cation;2014. p. 1–390.

16.Miettinen R. The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey' s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 2000. 19(1):54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/026013700293458.

17.Sawyer T., Eppich W., Brett-Fleegler M., Grant V., Cheng A. More than one way to debrief: a critical review of healthcare simu-lation debriefing methods. Simulation in Healthcare. 2016. 11(3):209–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148.

18.Kim M. A study on simulation-based nursing education status and debriefing operation [master's thesis]. Seoul: Chung-Ang University;. 2015. 1–88.

19.Kim JH., Park IH., Shin SJ. Systemic review of Korean studies on simulation within nursing education. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2013. 19(3):307–19. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2013.19.3.307.

20.Cantrell MA. The importance of debriefing in clinical simulations. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2008. 4(2):e19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2008.06.006.

21.Boet S., Bould MD., Bruppacher H., Desjardins F., Chandra D., Naik V. Looking in the mirror: self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises. Critical Care Medicine. 2011. 39(6):1377–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820eb8be.

22.Boet S., Bould MD., Sharma B., Revees S., Naik VN., Triby E, et al. Within-team debriefing versus instructor-led debriefing for simulation-based education: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery. 2013. 258(1):53–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31829659e4.

23.Jeong SJ., Jeong JC. The effects of unemployed vocational train-ee' s psychosocial characteristics, training program characteristics, learning flow, and career planning on employability. Journal of Agricultural Education and Human Resource De-velopment. 2014. 46(4):61–89.

24.Martin AJ., Jackson SA. Brief approaches to assessing task ab-sorption and enhanced subjective experience: examining 'short' and 'core' flow in diverse performance domains. Motivation and Emotion. 2008. 32(3):141–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9094-0.

25.National League for Nursing. Descriptions of available instru-ments [Internet]. Washington, DC: National League for Nursing;2003. [cited 2017 January 23]. Available from. http://www.nln.org/professional-development-programs/research/tools-and-instruments/descriptions-of-available-instruments.

26.Barrett C., Myrick F. Job satisfaction in preceptorship and its effect on the clinical performance of the preceptee. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1998. 27(2):364–71. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00511.x.

27.Korean Association of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Pro-vider manual of Korea advanced life support [KALS]. 2nd ed.Seoul: Koonja;2015. p. 48–9.

28.Phrampus PE., O'Donnell JM. Debriefing using a structured and supported approach. Levine AI, DeMaria S, Schwartz AD, Sim AJ, editors. The Comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation. 1st ed.New York: Springer Science and Busi-ness Media New York;2013. p. 73–84.

29.Jo HS., Park EY., Choi JS. Effects of self directed learning applying basic nursing practice contents of e-learning on nursing students' knowledge, self confidence and satisfaction. The Journal of the Korean Contents Association. 2013. 13(9):504–14. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.09.504.

30.Masters K. Edgar dale's pyramid of learning in medical education: a literature review. Medical Teacher. 2013. 35(11):e1584–93. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2013.800636.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of study.

Table 1.

Homogeneity Test of General Characteristics and Dependent Variables (N=199)

Characteristics	Categories	Total	Exp. (n=98)	Cont. (n=101)	x² or t	p
Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M± SD	n (%) or M± SD	n (%) or M± SD	x² or t	p
Age (year)		23.60±1.32	23.54±1.32	23.66±1.32	0.66	.513
Gender	Male	12 (6.0)	7 (7.1)	5 (5.0)	0.42	.516
Gender	Female	187 (94.0)	91 (92.9)	96 (95.0)
Religion	Yes	136 (68.3)	70 (71.4)	66 (65.3)	0.85	.356
Religion	No	63 (31.7)	28 (28.6)	35 (34.7)
Satisfaction about nursing major	High	73 (36.7)	30 (30.6)	43 (42.6)	3.72	.180^†
	Average	122 (61.3)	65 (66.3)	57 (56.4)
	Low	4 (2.0)	3 (3.1)	1 (1.0)
Satisfaction about clinical practice	High	44 (22.1)	22 (22.4)	22 (21.8)	2.47	.332^†
	Average	149 (74.9)	75 (76.5)	74 (73.3)
	Low	6 (3.0)	1 (1.0)	5 (5.0)
Interpersonal relationship	High	125 (62.8)	59 (60.2)	66 (65.3)	1.11	.592^†
	Average	71 (35.7)	38 (38.8)	33 (32.7)
	Low	3 (1.5)	1 (1.0)	2 (2.0)
Coping ability	High	122 (61.3)	63 (64.3)	59 (58.4)	2.22	.330
	Average	69 (34.7)	33 (33.7)	36 (35.6)
	Low	8 (4.0)	2 (2.0)	6 (6.0)
Grade point average	4.0~4.5	7 (3.5)	6 (6.1)	1 (1.0)	5.54	.219^†
	3.5~3.9	81 (40.7)	43 (43.9)	38 (37.6)
	3.0~3.4	76 (38.2)	33 (33.7)	43 (42.6)
	2.5~2.9	32 (16.1)	15 (15.3)	17 (16.8)
	＜2.5	3 (1.5)	1 (1.0)	2 (2.0)
Learning immersion		35.64±4.79	36.22±4.97	35.07±4.56	1.71	.089
Learning confidence		29.46±3.69	29.94±3.68	29.00±3.66	1.80	.073

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group;

^† Fisher's exact test.

Table 2.

Comparison of Clinical Performance Ability of Team (N=30)

Variables	Groups	Pretest	Posttest	t	p	Differences	t	p
Variables	Groups	M± SD	M± SD	t	p	M± SD	t	p
Clinical performance ability	Exp. (n=15)	11.53±2.55	28.37±6.85	-10.88	＜.001	16.83±5.99	-3.02	.005
	Cont. (n=15)	12.67±7.71	21.27±7.26	-3.84	.002	8.60±8.69
	t (p)	-0.54 (.593)	2.75 (.010)
Attitude	Exp. (n=15)	1.43±0.65	6.13±1.77	-9.79	＜.001	4.70±1.86	-3.31	.003
	Cont. (n=15)	2.47±2.59	4.60±2.20	-3.51	.003	2.13±2.36
	t (p)	-1.50 (.145)	2.11 (.044)
Knowledge and skill	Exp. (n=15)	10.10±2.28	22.23±5.33	-10.07	＜.001	12.13±4.67	-2.64	.014
	Cont. (n=15)	10.20±5.38	16.67±5.70	-3.63	.003	6.47±6.89
	t (p)	-0.07 (.948)	2.76 (.010)

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

Table 3.

Comparison of Learning Immersion, Learning Confidence and Simulation Satisfaction (N=199)

Variables	Groups	Pretest	Posttest	t	p	Differences	t	p
Variables	Groups	M± SD	M± SD	t	p	M± SD	t	p
Learning immersion	Exp. (n=98)	36.22±4.97	43.13±4.26	12.19	＜.001	6.91±5.61	2.66	.008
Learning immersion	Cont. (n=101)	35.07±4.56	39.29±7.48	5.07	＜.001	4.22±8.36
Learning confidence	Exp. (n=98)	3.74±0.46	4.30±0.45	-10.36	＜.001	0.56±0.54	-2.78	.006
Learning confidence	Cont. (n=101)	3.63±0.46	3.97±0.52	-5.99	＜.001	0.34±0.58
Simulation satisfaction	Exp. (n=98)	-	4.54±0.50	-	-	-	-3.15	.002
Simulation satisfaction	Cont. (n=101)	-	4.30±0.58	-	-	-

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

TOOLS

Similar articles