MedTrace Logo

In-Situ Simulation Different Debriefing Methods

NCT06052007 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 119

Last updated 2023-09-25

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

The goal of this pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study is to examined the effects of the learning conversation (LC)-based, 3D model-based, and standard debriefing methods on critical thinking, debriefing experience, and satisfaction after in-situ simulation among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses.

A total of 186 ICU nurses working in a training and research hospital participated in the study. Researchers will compare learning conversation (LC)-based, 3D model-based, and standard debriefing methods on critical thinking, debriefing experience, and satisfaction.

Conditions

  • Nursing Caries
  • Satisfaction
  • Simulation of Physical Illness

Interventions

BEHAVIORAL

LC-Based Debriefing

LC-based debriefing encourages reflection by allowing learners to identify and explore topics of particular interest. The model is defined as a structured post-event LC, which is useful for improving competence, professional development, and clinical judgment among intensive care unit and trauma nurses. The model is useful not only for one recipient by allowing reflection on positive and negative experiences but also for the whole group by allowing them to make connections to their own practice that day or to previous experiences, supporting teamwork. It also helps them understand what good practice is by doing their own self-assessment with peers' benchmarking.

BEHAVIORAL

3D Model-Based Debriefing

The model has three parts: defusing, discovering, and deepening. The experiential learning theory on which this model is based facilitates learning goals. This model allows its participants to create new mental models for future practice, develop critical thinking skills, and identify knowledge gaps. In the model, a debriefing session starts with preliminary information and ends with a summary of what has been learned. Participants' gaps in understanding and learning are identified, and how they can apply their learnings to practice is discussed.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Sakarya University

    lead OTHER

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
23 Years
Max Age
49 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2023-01-10
Primary Completion
2023-03-10
Completion
2023-04-10

Countries

  • Turkey (Türkiye)

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT06052007 on ClinicalTrials.gov