The Effect of Immediate Versus Delayed Debriefing on Basic Life Support Competence In Undergraduate Nursing Students.

NCT06624449 | Completed Results

• 1 other identifier: 2023-0423
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 44
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to find out if immediate (hot) or delayed (cold) debriefing is better for undergraduate nursing students during Basic Life Support (BLS) training. The study aims to:

• Identify the effect of hot versus cold debriefing in BLS training for nursing students.
• Identify which debriefing method students prefer. Researchers will compare the two debriefing methods. Participants will:
• Be randomly assigned (by flipping a coin) to either hot or cold debriefing.
• Take part in a simulation about Basic Life Support.

Conditions

BLS Competence; Debriefing

Keywords

Debriefing; Simulation; Basic Life Support; Undergraduate Nursing Students

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Basic Life Support Competence

  Competence level was measured via the American Heart Association (2020) Basic Life Support competency checklist, which is a dichotomous rating scale of 0 (not done/done incorrectly) and 1 (done correctly); there was a total of 15 points. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

  Immediately after the intervention

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Debriefing Experience Scale

  Immediately after the intervention

Study Arms (2)

Cold Debriefing

EXPERIMENTAL

The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group.

Behavioral: Cold debriefing

Hot Debriefing

OTHER

The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation).

Behavioral: Hot Debriefing

Interventions

Cold debriefing BEHAVIORAL

Manipulation (experimental): The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group.

Cold Debriefing

Hot Debriefing BEHAVIORAL

The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation).

Hot Debriefing

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Junior or senior nursing students (i.e., in their third or fourth year of the BSN degree).

You may not qualify if:

• Nursing students who are not junior or senior.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Cincinnati: lead

Study Sites (1)

University Of Cincinnati College of Nursing

Cincinnati, Ohio, 45221, United States

Location

Related Publications (6)

• Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

  BACKGROUND

• Reed, S. J. (2012). Debriefing experience scale: Development of a tool to evaluate the student learning experience in debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(6), e211-e217.

  RESULT

• Meguerdichian M, Bajaj K, Ivanhoe R, Lin Y, Sloma A, de Roche A, Altonen B, Bentley S, Cheng A, Walker K. Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022 Dec 12;7(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00236-x.

  PMID: 36503623 RESULT

• Ha EH. Effects of hot and cold debriefing in simulation with case-based learning. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2021 Feb 26:e12410. doi: 10.1111/jjns.12410. Online ahead of print.

  PMID: 33634592 RESULT

• Kessler DO, Cheng A, Mullan PC. Debriefing in the emergency department after clinical events: a practical guide. Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;65(6):690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.10.019. Epub 2014 Nov 15.

  PMID: 25455910 RESULT

• Couper K, Perkins GD. Debriefing after resuscitation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013 Jun;19(3):188-94. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32835f58aa.

  PMID: 23426138 RESULT

Limitations and Caveats

We initially aimed to recruit 52 participants but ended up with only 44. This may pose a threat to the internal validity of the study. Additionally, since the participants were drawn from a single nursing school, the generalizability of the findings is limited, representing a threat to external validity.

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Fahad Alanezi
• Organization: University of Cincinnati

alanezfz@mail.uc.edu

5138845844

Study Officials

• Fahad Alanezi, PhD Candidate, MSc, BSN

  University of Cincinnati

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: No
• Restrictive Agreement: No

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Principal Investigator

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 27, 2024
• First Posted: October 3, 2024
• Study Start: August 29, 2023
• Primary Completion: March 7, 2024
• Study Completion: March 7, 2024
• Last Updated: November 29, 2024
• Results First Posted: November 29, 2024

Record last verified: 2024-11

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, CSR, ANALYTIC CODE
• Time Frame: Unending

Locations

US (1)