4.3 Article

Effect of Multiple-Patient Simulation on Baccalaureate Nursing Students' Anxiety and Self-confidence A Pilot Study

期刊

NURSE EDUCATOR
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 162-167

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001336

关键词

anxiety; mixed-methods; multiple-patient simulation; nursing student; prelicensure; self-confidence

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This pilot study explored the impact of multiple-patient simulation on nursing students. The findings showed significant improvement in self-confidence with clinical decision-making and reduction in anxiety and anxiety with clinical decision-making. However, no significant differences were found between groups. Further research is needed to investigate additional student outcomes after multiple-patient simulation.
Background:Multiple-patient simulation (MPS) allows nursing students to develop leadership skills. Limited research examining student outcomes following MPS exists. Purpose:This pilot study investigated the impact of MPS on (1) anxiety with transition to practice, (2) anxiety with clinical decision-making, (3) self-confidence with clinical decision-making, and (4) perceptions about MPS as a learning strategy. Methods:Twenty-two senior baccalaureate nursing students participated in this 2-group mixed-methods study. Data were collected before and after a leadership course using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Nursing Anxiety and Self-Confidence with Clinical Decision-Making Scale, and a researcher-developed perceptions survey. Results:Self-confidence with clinical decision-making significantly increased for all participants regardless of group assignment. Anxiety and anxiety with clinical decision-making decreased without significant changes. No significant differences were found between groups. Qualitative findings yielded 3 themes: preparation for clinical practice, overcoming anxiety, and confidence. Conclusion:Research investigating additional student outcomes after MPS with larger, more diverse samples is needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据