Comparison of standardized patients with high-fidelity simulators for managing stress and improving performance in clinical deterioration: A mixed methods study. (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ignacio, Jeanette; Dolmans, Diana; Scherpbier, Albert; Rethans, Jan-Joost; Chan, Sally; Liaw, Sok Ying
• Is Part Of: Nurse education today. Volume 35:Number 12(2015:Dec.)
• Page Start: 1161
• Page End: 1168
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Simulations -- Stress -- Performance -- Patient deterioration -- Nursing education; Nursing -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Education, Nursing -- Periodicals; Soins infirmiers -- Étude et enseignement -- Périodiques; Nursing -- Study and teaching; Periodicals; 610.7307
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.05.009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0260-6917

Abstract

Summary: Background: The use of standardized patients in deteriorating patient simulations adds realism that can be valuable for preparing nurse trainees for stress and enhancing their performance during actual patient deterioration. Emotional engagement resulting from increased fidelity can provide additional stress for student nurses with limited exposure to real patients. To determine the presence of increased stress with the standardized patient modality, this study compared the use of standardized patients (SP) with the use of high-fidelity simulators (HFS) during deteriorating patient simulations. Performance in managing deteriorating patients was also compared. It also explored student nurses' insights on the use of standardized patients and patient simulators in deteriorating patient simulations as preparation for clinical placement. Methods: Fifty-seven student nurses participated in a randomized controlled design study with pre- and post-tests to evaluate stress and performance in deteriorating patient simulations. Performance was assessed using the Rescuing A Patient in Deteriorating Situations (RAPIDS) rating tool. Stress was measured using salivary alpha-amylase levels. Fourteen participants who joined the randomized controlled component then participated in focus group discussions that elicited their insights on SP use in patient deterioration simulations. Results: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results showed no significant difference (p = 0.744) between the performance scores of the SP and HFS groups in managing deteriorating patients. Amylase levels were also not significantly different (p = 0.317) between the two groups. Stress in simulation, awareness of patient interactions, and realism were the main themes that resulted from the thematic analysis. Conclusions: Performance and stress in deteriorating patient simulations with standardized patients did not vary from similar simulations using high-fidelity patient simulators. Data from focus group interviews, however, suggested that the use of standardized patients was perceived to be valuable in preparing students for actual patient deterioration management. Highlights: SPs were used to enhance psychological fidelity to patient deterioration simulations. Authentic emotional responses were elicited when SPs were used due to the realism. Stress and performance in simulations using SPs and HFS were compared. There was no difference in objective stress (amylase level) between the two groups. Addition of SPs was perceived as more stressful but helped to improve performance.