↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of standardized patients with high-fidelity simulators for managing stress and improving performance in clinical deterioration: A mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Nurse Education Today, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of standardized patients with high-fidelity simulators for managing stress and improving performance in clinical deterioration: A mixed methods study
Published in
Nurse Education Today, May 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.05.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeanette Ignacio, Diana Dolmans, Albert Scherpbier, Jan-Joost Rethans, Sally Chan, Sok Ying Liaw

Abstract

The use of standardized patients in deteriorating patient simulations adds realism that can be valuable for preparing nurse trainees for stress and enhancing their performance during actual patient deterioration. Emotional engagement resulting from increased fidelity can provide additional stress for student nurses with limited exposure to real patients. To determine the presence of increased stress with the standardized patient modality, this study compared the use of standardized patients (SP) with the use of high-fidelity simulators (HFS) during deteriorating patient simulations. Performance in managing deteriorating patients was also compared. It also explored student nurses' insights on the use of standardized patients and patient simulators in deteriorating patient simulations as preparation for clinical placement. Fifty-seven student nurses participated in a randomized controlled design study with pre- and post-tests to evaluate stress and performance in deteriorating patient simulations. Performance was assessed using the Rescuing A Patient in Deteriorating Situations (RAPIDS) rating tool. Stress was measured using salivary alpha-amylase levels. Fourteen participants who joined the randomized controlled component then participated in focus group discussions that elicited their insights on SP use in patient deterioration simulations. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results showed no significant difference (p=0.744) between the performance scores of the SP and HFS groups in managing deteriorating patients. Amylase levels were also not significantly different (p=0.317) between the two groups. Stress in simulation, awareness of patient interactions, and realism were the main themes that resulted from the thematic analysis. Performance and stress in deteriorating patient simulations with standardized patients did not vary from similar simulations using high-fidelity patient simulators. Data from focus group interviews, however, suggested that the use of standardized patients was perceived to be valuable in preparing students for actual patient deterioration management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Other 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Researcher 12 7%
Other 39 23%
Unknown 46 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 48 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 20%
Psychology 10 6%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 56 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Nurse Education Today
#1,944
of 2,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,760
of 281,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nurse Education Today
#41
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.