Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Different Simulators in Developing Urethral Catheterization Skills in Nursing Students

Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinde Üriner Kateterizasyon Uygulama Becerisi Geliştirmede Farklı Simülatörlerin Etkinliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
285–292
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: As a result of this study, it was shown that while the knowledge levels of the students did significantly increase in all groups (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different simulators for the development of students’ urethral catheterization skills.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: This study was conducted using a quasi-experimental design with 2nd year nursing students (n=80) at a nursing school in the Aegean Region of Turkey between November and December of 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: As a result of this study, it was shown that while the knowledge levels of the students did significantly increase in all groups (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Hemşirelik öğrencisi · simülasyon · üriner kateterizasyon

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different simulators for the development of students’ urethral catheterization skills. Material and Methods: This study was conducted using a quasi-experimental design with 2nd year nursing students (n=80) at a nursing school in the Aegean Region of Turkey between November and December of 2018. This study was approved by the ethics committee of a university (Approval Number: 2016-273). Students were randomly assigned to three groups (partial urethral catheterization simulator, whole-body simulator, or partial urethral catheterization simulator with poster). All participants were evaluated through a hybrid simulation method. The data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, and Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: As a result of this study, it was shown that while the knowledge levels of the students did significantly increase in all groups (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğrencilerin üriner kateterizasyon becerilerinin gelişimi için farklı simülatörlerin etkinliğini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma, Kasım ve Aralık 2018 tarihleri arasında Türkiye’nin Ege Bölgesi'nde bir hemşirelik okulunda 2. sınıf hemşirelik öğrencileriyle (n=80) yarı deneysel desen kullanılarak yürütülmüştür. Bu çalışma bir üniversitenin etik kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (Onay Numarası: 2016-273). Öğrenciler randomize edilerek üç gruba (parça üriner kateterizasyon simülatörü, tüm vücut simülatörü, ya da posterli parça üriner kateterizasyon simülatörü) ayrılmıştır. Tüm katılımcı hemşirelik öğrencileri hibrid simülasyon yöntemi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Veriler, Ki Kare testi, Wilcoxon İşaretli Sıralar testi ve Kruskal-Wallis testi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Bu çalışmanın sonucunda, öğrencilerin bilgi düzeylerinin tüm simülatör gruplarında anlamlı olarak artarken (p

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYSAL, E., BAŞAK, T., SARI, D., ÜNVER, V., TAŞKIRAN, N. (2022). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Different Simulators in Developing Urethral Catheterization Skills in Nursing Students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 285–292. https://ajindex.com/articles/532662

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Harper M, Eales-Reynold LJ, Markham C. Transforming simulation in clinical education: Is pre-placement hybrid learning valuable to healthcare students? J Contemp Med Edu. 2013;1(1):15-24
  2. Yuan HB, Williams BA, Fang JB. The contribution of high-fidelity simulation to nursing students’ confidence and competence: a systematic review. Int Nurs Rev. 2012;59(1):26-33
  3. Berragan L. Simulation: An effective pedagogical approach for nursing? Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(7):660-3
  4. Chronister C, Brown D. Comparison of simulation debriefing methods. Clin Simul Nurs. 2012;8(7):e281-8
  5. Kim J, Park JH, Shin S. Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: A meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):152-9
  6. Doolen J, Mariani B, Atz T, Horsley TL., O'Rourke J, McAfee K, et al. High-fidelity simulation in undergraduate nursing education: A review of simulation reviews. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016;12(7):290-302
  7. Basak T, Unver V, Moss J, Watts P, Gaioso V. Beginning and advanced students' perceptions of the use of low and high-fidelity mannequins in nursing simulation. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;36(2016):37-43
  8. Al-Ghareeb AZ, Cooper SJ. Barriers and enablers to the use of high-fidelity patient simulation manikins in nurse education: An integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;36(2016):281-6
  9. Mutlu B, Yılmaz OE, Dur S. The effect of high and low-fidelity simulators in learning heart and lung sounds by undergraduate nurses: A randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Nurse. 2019;55(4-5):351-9
  10. Toserud R, Hedelin B, Hall-Lord ML. Nursing students’ perception of high and low-fidelity simulation used as learning methods. Nurse Educ Prac. 2013;13(4):262-70
  11. Joud A, Sandholm A, Alseby L, Petersson G, Nilsson G. Feasibility of a computerized male urethral catheterization simulator. Nurse Educ Pract. 2010;10(2):70-5
  12. INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL standards of best practice: SimulationSM Simulation design. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12(S):S5–S12
  13. Potter A, Perry G, Stockert A, Hal M. Fundamentals of Nursing. 8th ed. Canada: Mosby an Imprint of Elsevier Inc; 2013
  14. Berman A, Snyder S, Frandsen G. Kozier & Erb's Fundamentals of Nursing. 10th ed. Reid-Searl K, editor. Urinary Elimination. Australian: Pearson; 2015
  15. Craven F, Hirnle J, Jensen S. Fundamentals of Nursing: Human Health and Function. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013
  16. Jeffries PR, & Rizzolo MA. Desi