Assessing Outcome Measurements and Impact of Simulation in Neurocritical Care Training: A Systematic Review.

Khalil M Yousef, Ibrahim Alananzeh, Shameena Beegom, Jose Chavez, Sarah Hatahet, Heba Khalil, Zachary Krom, Olena Svetlov
{"title":"Assessing Outcome Measurements and Impact of Simulation in Neurocritical Care Training: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Khalil M Yousef, Ibrahim Alananzeh, Shameena Beegom, Jose Chavez, Sarah Hatahet, Heba Khalil, Zachary Krom, Olena Svetlov","doi":"10.1097/JNN.0000000000000767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>AIM: The use of simulation training in neurocritical care is increasing. Yet, the pooled impact on patient and trainee outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review aims to determine the outcome measurements used after simulation training in neurocritical care and to synthesize the current evidence about the impact of simulation training on these outcomes. METHODS: A 3-step search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria were composed of studies exploring simulation training in neurocritical care, published in English between 2000 and 2023. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction, using standardized Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Meta-analysis was precluded because of clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Nine relevant studies were found: 1 quality improvement project and 8 quasi-experimental studies. The overall quality of the relevant studies was moderate to high (61.1%-77.8%). Three types of outcome measurements for simulation in neurocritical care were identified: knowledge and clinical performance; confidence and comfort; and teamwork, communication, and leadership skills. Simulation training was associated with a significant improvement in knowledge and clinical performance, and confidence and comfort, but not in communication and leadership skills. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in trainees' outcomes was observed. The current literature includes significant heterogeneity in the methods of evaluating simulation outcomes, although no patient outcomes were observed. Investigating the effect of simulation in neurocritical care training on patient outcomes in future studies is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":94240,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","volume":" ","pages":"130-135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000767","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: AIM: The use of simulation training in neurocritical care is increasing. Yet, the pooled impact on patient and trainee outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review aims to determine the outcome measurements used after simulation training in neurocritical care and to synthesize the current evidence about the impact of simulation training on these outcomes. METHODS: A 3-step search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria were composed of studies exploring simulation training in neurocritical care, published in English between 2000 and 2023. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction, using standardized Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Meta-analysis was precluded because of clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Nine relevant studies were found: 1 quality improvement project and 8 quasi-experimental studies. The overall quality of the relevant studies was moderate to high (61.1%-77.8%). Three types of outcome measurements for simulation in neurocritical care were identified: knowledge and clinical performance; confidence and comfort; and teamwork, communication, and leadership skills. Simulation training was associated with a significant improvement in knowledge and clinical performance, and confidence and comfort, but not in communication and leadership skills. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in trainees' outcomes was observed. The current literature includes significant heterogeneity in the methods of evaluating simulation outcomes, although no patient outcomes were observed. Investigating the effect of simulation in neurocritical care training on patient outcomes in future studies is warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估神经重症监护模拟培训的成果测量和影响:系统回顾。
摘要:目的:在神经重症监护中使用模拟训练的情况越来越多。然而,其对患者和受训者结果的综合影响仍不明确。本系统性综述旨在确定神经重症护理模拟训练后使用的结果测量方法,并综合模拟训练对这些结果影响的现有证据。方法:在 CINAHL、Cochrane、MEDLINE、PsychINFO 和 Scopus 中进行了三步检索。纳入标准包括 2000 年至 2023 年间发表的有关神经重症护理模拟培训的英文研究。两名审稿人使用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所的标准化工具独立进行筛选、批判性评估和数据提取。由于存在临床、方法学和统计学异质性,因此排除了荟萃分析。结果:共发现 9 项相关研究:1 项质量改进项目和 8 项准实验研究。相关研究的总体质量为中高水平(61.1%-77.8%)。神经重症护理模拟的结果测量分为三类:知识和临床表现;信心和舒适度;团队合作、沟通和领导技能。模拟训练在知识和临床表现、信心和舒适度方面有显著改善,但在沟通和领导技能方面没有改善。结论:受训者的学习效果得到了显著改善。尽管没有观察到对患者的治疗效果,但目前的文献在评估模拟结果的方法上存在很大的异质性。在未来的研究中,有必要调查模拟在神经重症监护培训中对患者疗效的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementation of a Nurse-Initiated Protocol to Improve Enteral Medication Administration Documentation in Stroke Patients. Methods for Developing Neuroscience Nursing Clinical Practice Guidelines. Development of an Acute Stroke Care Seeking Framework. Exploring Perspectives on Stroke Standard Set Data Collection: A Qualitative Descriptive Study. Measures and Influencers of Reintegration for the Stroke Patient: A Systematic Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1