Three Debriefing Methods in Virtual Patient Simulation

NCT06677398 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: Date: 10.09.2024 No:2024-435
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 109
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

In simulation-based training, the debriefing session is considered a cornerstone of learning. Therefore, this study aims to compare two different methods of debriefing sessions.

Conditions

Virtual Patient; Debriefing Method; Nursing Student

Keywords

Debriefing; Feedback; Effectiveness; Patient Simulation; Virtual Systems; Nursing Students

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• Hypothesis 1

  There is a difference in the Simulation Effectiveness Tool scores between students using debriefing methods.

  1 week

• Hypothesis 2

  There is a difference in the Debriefing Experience Scale scores between students using debriefing methods.

  1 week

• Hypothesis 3

  There is a difference in The Student Satisfaction and Self-confidence scores between students using debriefing methods.

  1 week

Study Arms (3)

Group A

EXPERIMENTAL

Experimental group that used one of the debriefing methods

Other: Debriefing Method 1

Group B

EXPERIMENTAL

Experimental group that used one of the debriefing methods

Other: Debriefing Method 2

Group C

OTHER

A control group that used none of the debriefing methods

Other: Debriefing Method VP

Interventions

Debriefing Method 1 OTHER

The researchers used a debriefing method that they chose after a virtual simulation

Group A

Debriefing Method VP OTHER

The researchers used the debriefing method that virtual patient simulator presents

Group C

Debriefing Method 2 OTHER

The researchers used a debriefing method that they chose after a virtual simulation

Group B

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Being 4th grade nursing student at a nursing faculty

You may not qualify if:

• Not having participated in simulation before and not having practiced with a virtual patient.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gulhane Tip Fakultesi: lead

Study Sites (1)

University of Health Sciences Turkey, Gulhane Faculty of Nursing

Ankara, Etlik, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

Related Publications (3)

• Dreifuerst, K.T., 2015. Getting started with debriefing for meaningful learning. Clin Simul Nurs 11, 268-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.01.005

  BACKGROUND

• Decker, S., Alinier, G., Crawford, S.B., Gordon, R.M., Jenkins, D., Wilson, C., 2021. Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM The Debriefing Process. Clin Simul Nurs 58, 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011

  BACKGROUND

• Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, Chang TP, Nadkarni VM, Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould J, Lin Y, Cook DA, Pusic M, Hui J, Moher D, Egger M, Auerbach M; International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education (INSPIRE) Reporting Guidelines Investigators. Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Adv Simul (Lond). 2016 Jul 25;1:25. doi: 10.1186/s41077-016-0025-y. eCollection 2016.

  PMID: 29449994 BACKGROUND

Related Links

• Power
• Randomly Assign Persons to Groups

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: Asst. Prof

Model Details: Parallel group-randomized trial

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: November 2, 2024
• First Posted: November 6, 2024
• Study Start: November 1, 2024
• Primary Completion: January 29, 2025
• Study Completion: January 29, 2025
• Last Updated: February 11, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-02

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

TU (1)