• KSAN
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission

Korean J Adult Nurs : Korean Journal of Adult Nursing

OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button
Search
Advanced Search
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Page Path

Original Article

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
Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2016;28(2):169-179.
Published online: April 30, 2016

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: February 1, 2016   • Accepted: April 18, 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.

  • 33 Views
  • 1 Download
  • 6 Crossref
prev next

Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF
  • 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.
  • Key Words: Video-assisted debriefing; Simulation-based training for basic life support; Non-technical skills; Technical skills
Figure 1.
Flow chart of study process.
kjan-28-169f1.jpg
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.

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 10.Judy JRCatherine B. Facilitated debriefing. In: 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.
  • 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.
  • 14.Rogers A. Videotape feedback in group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy; Theory, Research, and Practice. 1985;5:37-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0088647.
  • 15.Newby T, Stepich D, Lehman J, Russell JInstructional technology for teaching and learning. USA: Prentice-Hall Inc; 2000.
  • 16.Park IHThe effects of video-aided feedback in pre and post operative nursing simulation practice. [master's thesis]. Asan: Soonchunhyang University; 2013.
  • 17.Kim JYDevelopment 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.
  • 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.
  • 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):1639http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.043547.
  • 21.Cooper S, Bogossian FEManaging 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.
  • 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 HRManual 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Effectiveness of donning and doffing personal protective equipment education using video debriefing among Korean undergraduate nursing students
      GyeJeong Yeom, Jiyun Park
      BMC Nursing.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Comparison of real-time feedback and debriefing by video recording on basic life support skill in nursing students
      Mohammad Sajjad Ghaderi, Javad Malekzadeh, Seyedreza Mazloum, Tayebe Pourghaznein
      BMC Medical Education.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Effect of simulation-based teaching on nursing skill performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Agezegn Asegid, Nega Assefa
      Frontiers of Nursing.2021; 8(3): 193.     CrossRef
    • Debriefing methods and learning outcomes in simulation nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis
      JuHee Lee, Hyejung Lee, Sue Kim, Mona Choi, Il Sun Ko, JuYeon Bae, Sung Hae Kim
      Nurse Education Today.2020; 87: 104345.     CrossRef
    • Comparing the learning effects of debriefing modalities for the care of premature infants
      Myung‐Nam Lee, Shin‐Jeong Kim, Kyung‐Ah Kang, Sunghee Kim
      Nursing & Health Sciences.2020; 22(2): 243.     CrossRef
    • Effect of Debriefing Based on the Clinical Judgment Model on Simulation Based Learning Outcomes of End-of-Life Care for Nursing Students: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial
      Kyung In Jeong, Ja Yun Choi
      Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing.2017; 47(6): 842.     CrossRef

    Download Citation

    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

    Format:

    Include:

    Effects of Simulation-based Training for Basic Life Support Utilizing Video-assisted Debriefing on Non-Technical and Technical Skills of Nursing Students
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2016;28(2):169-179.   Published online April 30, 2016
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2016.28.2.169
    Download Citation
    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
    Format:
    • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
    • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
    Include:
    • Citation for the content below
    Effects of Simulation-based Training for Basic Life Support Utilizing Video-assisted Debriefing on Non-Technical and Technical Skills of Nursing Students
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2016;28(2):169-179.   Published online April 30, 2016
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2016.28.2.169
    Close

    Figure

    • 0
    Effects of Simulation-based Training for Basic Life Support Utilizing Video-assisted Debriefing on Non-Technical and Technical Skills of Nursing Students
    Image
    Figure 1. Flow chart of study process.

    Figure 1.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Table 1. Homogeneity Test of Dependent Variables

    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)

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

    Table 3. Effects of Basic Life Support Simulation Training Using Video-assisted Debriefing on Technical Skills (N=12)

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

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Korean J Adult Nurs : Korean Journal of Adult Nursing

    ABOUT

    BROWSE ARTICLES 

    EDITORIAL POLICY

    FOR CONTRIBUTORS  

    © Korean Society of Adult Nursing.
    TOP