Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this clinical trial is to find out if immediate (hot) or delayed (cold) debriefing is better for undergraduate nursing students during Basic Life Support (BLS) training.
The study aims to:
Researchers will compare the two debriefing methods. Participants will:
This RCT aimed to identify the efficacy of cold versus hot debriefing in BLS training for undergraduate nursing students' BLS competence and to assess the impact of hot and cold debriefing nursing students' debriefing experience.
Specific Aims/Hypothesis Specific aim 1: Identify the efficacy of cold versus hot debriefing in BLS training for undergraduate nursing students' BLS competence.
Hypothesis 1a: In both cold and hot debriefing groups, there is a significant difference in the BLS competence of undergraduate nursing students between pre-intervention and post-intervention.
Hypothesis 1b: Undergraduate nursing students who receive cold debriefing will show greater BLS competence than those who receive hot debriefing. Our approach to testing the aim is to conduct an experimental design study.
Specific aim 2: Assess the impact of hot and cold debriefing on undergraduate nursing students' debriefing experience.
Hypothesis 2: Undergraduate nursing students who receive cold debriefing will show greater debriefing experience scores than those who receive hot debriefing.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cold Debriefing | Experimental | The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. |
|
| Hot Debriefing | Other | The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cold debriefing | Behavioral | Manipulation (experimental): The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Life Support Competence | Competence level was measured via the American Heart Association (2020) Basic Life Support competency checklist, which is a dichotomous rating scale of 0 (not done/done incorrectly) and 1 (done correctly); there was a total of 15 points. The higher the score, the better the outcome. | Immediately after the intervention |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Debriefing Experience Scale | The Debriefing Experience Scale (DES) (Reed, 2012) was developed to assess nursing students debriefing experience. It included 20 elements in total and was split into four subscales: (1) Analyzing Thoughts and Feelings; (2) Learning and Makin Connections; (3) Facilitator Skill in Conducting the Debriefing; and (4) Appropriate Facilitator Guidance (Reed, 2012). A Likert scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The minimum score is 20 and the maximum is 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Fahad Alanezi, PhD Candidate, MSc, BSN | University of Cincinnati | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University Of Cincinnati College of Nursing | Cincinnati | Ohio | 45221 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background | Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. | ||
| Result | Reed, S. J. (2012). Debriefing experience scale: Development of a tool to evaluate the student learning experience in debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(6), e211-e217. | ||
| 36503623 | Result | Meguerdichian M, Bajaj K, Ivanhoe R, Lin Y, Sloma A, de Roche A, Altonen B, Bentley S, Cheng A, Walker K. Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022 Dec 12;7(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00236-x. | |
| 33634592 |
Not provided
Not provided
All collected IPD, all IPD that underlie results in a publication
Unending
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Cold Debriefing | The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. Cold debriefing: Manipulation (experimental): The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. |
| FG001 | Hot Debriefing | The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). Hot Debriefing: The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Cold Debriefing | The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. Cold debriefing: Manipulation (experimental): The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Basic Life Support Competence | Competence level was measured via the American Heart Association (2020) Basic Life Support competency checklist, which is a dichotomous rating scale of 0 (not done/done incorrectly) and 1 (done correctly); there was a total of 15 points. The higher the score, the better the outcome. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Immediately after the intervention |
|
The study did not collect data on adverse events. It was a simulation experience where we tested two debriefing methods and their impact on BLS competence for undergraduate nursing students.
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Cold Debriefing | The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. Cold debriefing: Manipulation (experimental): The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. |
Not provided
Not provided
We initially aimed to recruit 52 participants but ended up with only 44. This may pose a threat to the internal validity of the study. Additionally, since the participants were drawn from a single nursing school, the generalizability of the findings is limited, representing a threat to external validity.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fahad Alanezi | University of Cincinnati | 5138845844 | alanezfz@mail.uc.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Oct 5, 2023 | Oct 3, 2024 | Prot_000.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Oct 5, 2023 | Oct 3, 2024 | SAP_001.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Hot Debriefing | Behavioral | The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). |
|
| Immediately after the intervention |
| Result |
| Ha EH. Effects of hot and cold debriefing in simulation with case-based learning. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2021 Feb 26:e12410. doi: 10.1111/jjns.12410. Online ahead of print. |
| 25455910 | Result | Kessler DO, Cheng A, Mullan PC. Debriefing in the emergency department after clinical events: a practical guide. Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;65(6):690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.10.019. Epub 2014 Nov 15. |
| 23426138 | Result | Couper K, Perkins GD. Debriefing after resuscitation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013 Jun;19(3):188-94. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32835f58aa. |
| BG001 |
| Hot Debriefing |
The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). Hot Debriefing: The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Finished Credits Hours in Current Program | Mean | Standard Deviation | Credits Hours |
|
| Overall GPA | Mean | Standard Deviation | GPA |
|
| BLS Certificate | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| BLS Certificate Date | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Simulation Experiences | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Simulation sessions | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Previous cardiac arrest(s) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). Hot Debriefing: The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Debriefing Experience Scale | The Debriefing Experience Scale (DES) (Reed, 2012) was developed to assess nursing students debriefing experience. It included 20 elements in total and was split into four subscales: (1) Analyzing Thoughts and Feelings; (2) Learning and Makin Connections; (3) Facilitator Skill in Conducting the Debriefing; and (4) Appropriate Facilitator Guidance (Reed, 2012). A Likert scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The minimum score is 20 and the maximum is 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Immediately after the intervention |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| EG001 | Hot Debriefing | The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). Hot Debriefing: The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not provided
Not provided