1 |
Ayed (2022)/ Palestine |
24 |
n-RCT/ SN; E=75, C=75 |
None |
HFS with debriefing (2 hours) + clinical training Scenario: bacterial meningitis child |
Lecture (3 hours) + clinical training |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p<.001) |
2†
|
Rababa (2022)/ Jordan |
25 |
n-RCT/ RN (EICU for at least 1 year); E=35, C=35 |
None |
2 weeks course (2 times for 2 weeks) Lecture (1 hour) + branching simulations (1 hour) Scenario: acute sepsis assessment, management in critical care patient |
2 weeks course (2 times for 2 weeks) Lecture (1 hour) |
Decision making |
NDMI |
The experimental group significant improvement in decision making (p=.002) |
3†
|
Lee (2022)/ Korea |
26 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=46, C=45 |
Peplau’s interpersonal relationship model |
HFS problem-based learning Scenario: cesarean section maternity nursing Pre-briefing (50 minutes) + simulation (15 minutes) + debriefing (50 minutes) |
Conventional type of maternity nursing clinical practice |
Communication ability (skill) |
K-HCAT |
No significant in communication skills (p=.150) |
Communication attitude |
CSAS |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication attitudes (p=.020) |
4 |
Park (2022)/ Korea |
27 |
n-RCT/ SN(4); E=21, C=21 |
None |
4 weeks course Scenario: cardiac arrest emergency nursing Lecture (2 hours) + pre scenario activities (2 hour) + simulation (10∼20 minutes, SimMan) + debriefing (20∼30 minutes) |
Lecture of cardiac arrest emergency nursing education (2 hours) |
Communication self-efficacy |
Ayres (2005)’s self-efficacy scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication self-efficacy (p=.007) |
Communication ability (competence) |
K-HCAT |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication competence (p=.005) |
5†
|
Chang (2021)/ Taiwan |
28 |
RCT/ SN(2); E=58, C=49 |
Cognitive load theory |
Online interactive animation with standardized patient simulation) Lecture (2 times for 2 hours) + simulation-based nursing course training program Simulation witn debrifing (2 hours) Scenario: constipation, death |
Lecture (2 times for 2 hours) + case study |
Communication self-confidence |
Huang et al. (2011)’s confidence in communication scale |
Both groups significant improvement in confidence in communication (p<.001) |
6†
|
Salameh (2021)/ Palestine |
29 |
n-RCT/ SN(4); E=76, C=75 |
None |
Traditional advanced nursing courses (9 hours of sessions) + simulation (6 scenarios) Scenarios: respiratory emergencies with mechanical ventilator Simulation (5∼20 minutes, HFS) + debriefing |
Traditional advanced nursing course (9 sessions) |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p<.001) |
7 |
Luo (2021)/ China |
30 |
n-RCT/ RN (new graduate nurses); E=16, C1=16, C2=14 |
Jeffries’ simulation theory |
Case discussion (10 minutes) + simulation (15 minutes, SimMan) + debriefing (35 minutes) Scenario: acute myocardial infraction, fracture of lower leg, chronic constructive pulmonary phase, intellectual observation |
C1: The virtual simulation group used the training platform vSim C2: The case study group conducted lectures and case studies |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The virtual simulation group showed a higher level of clinical judgment |
8†
|
Seo (2021)/ Korea |
31 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=122, C=132 |
None |
2 weeks per scenario Scenario: patients with surgery, endocrine system, circulatory system, urinary system Pre-learning (10 minutes), simulation (50 minutes, SimMan) + debriefing (40 minutes) |
The control group did not take a simulation course |
Communication ability |
Korea educational development institute’s (2003) communication ability sclae |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication ability (p<.001) |
9 |
Akalin (2020)/ Turkey |
32 |
RCT/ SN(3); E=53, C=54 |
Jeffries’ simulation framework |
2 days course Scenario: pre-eclampsia Simulation (15 minutes, HFS) + debriefing (30 minutes) |
Classical training (4 hours) |
Decision making |
CDMNS |
The experimental group significant improvement in decision making (p=.031) |
10 |
Reid (2020)/ USA |
33 |
n-RCT/ SN; E=27, C=35 |
Tanner’s clinical judgment model |
Scenario: maternal-newborn clinical course Simulation with debriefing |
Hospital-based clinical experiences |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
No significant in clinical judgment (p=.295) |
11 |
Hwang (2020)/ Korea |
34 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=34, C=32 |
None |
Standardized patient-based simulation with debriefing Scenario: preoperative nursing for high-risk pregnant women |
Traditional clinical practice |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p<.001) |
Communication ability |
Yoo (2001)’s communication ability scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication ability (p<.001) |
12†
|
Ha (2020)/ Korea |
35 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=35, C=35 |
None |
Simulation-based program + clinical practice Scenario: children admitted for respiratory diseases Practice guidance (30 minutes), simulation preparation (20 minutes), simulation (50 minutes, Pediatric Hal S3005) + debriefing(20 minutes) |
Lecture (120 minutes) + clinical practice. |
Communication ability (skill) |
GICC |
No significant in communication skill (p=.438) |
13†
|
Kim (2020)/ Korea |
36 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=33, C=31 |
Jeffries’ simulation model, ADDIE model |
4 days course Scenario: uterine relaxation, acid laceration, residual placenta (one of these) Lecture (2 hours, postpartum bleeding woman nursing) + Orientation (10 minutes) + scenario description (5 minutes), simulation (15 minutes, SimMom) + team learning (50 minutes) + debriefing (40 minutes) |
4 days course Lecture (2 hours) + case study |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p<.001) |
14†
|
Ok (2020)/ Turkey |
37 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=52, C=33 |
The simulation design was based on the INACSL |
2 days course Scenario: psychiatric nursing Lecture (2 hours) + simulation (10∼12 minutes, standardized patient simulation) + debriefing (30∼35 minutes) |
Lecture (2 hours) + clinical practice |
Communication ability (skill) |
CSI |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication skill (p<.001) |
15†
|
Li (2019)/ China |
38 |
RCT/ SN(1); E=66, C=66 |
Deliberate practice |
8 weeks course Traditional education + simulation-based deliberate practice (simulation took 30 minutes) Scenario: breast cancer patient receiving chemotherapy |
Traditional education |
Communication ability |
Yang et al. (2010)’s modified version of the communication ability scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication ability (p<.010) |
16†
|
Lee (2019)/ Taiwan |
39 |
n-RCT/ SN(2); E=49, C=51 |
None |
Scenario: adult acute care Introduction + simulation (10∼15 minutes, HFS) + debriefing (each scenario took 1.5 hours) |
Typical process + case study discussion (each case study discussion took 1.5 hours) |
Communication ability (competency) |
SBLES |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication (p<.001) |
17†
|
Chae (2019)/ Korea |
40 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=30, C=30 |
None |
Lectures + scenario-based simulation Scenario: asthma patients |
Hand outs + group discussion |
Communication clarity |
Cho (2013)’s modified version of the communication clarity scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communications clarity (p=.020) |
18 |
Kim (2018)/ Korea |
41 |
n-RCT/ RN (new graduate nurses); E=28, C=27 |
None |
Pre-class (60 minutes) Simulation (Medical Education Technologies 3G, SP) + debriefing (2 hours for the 2 scenarios) Scenarios: abdominal pain, hypoglycemia |
Pre-class (60 minutes) Role plays + discussions (2 hours on the 2 scenarios) |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
In the evaluation of the latent effects, clinical judgment was significantly higher in the experimental group (p=.033) |
19†
|
Im (2018)/ Korea |
42 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=43, C=39 |
None |
8weeks course (4 hours a week) Simulation (SP) + video debriefing Scenario: patient safety, communication, medication, recording |
Regular curriculum (2 weeks) + practice (2 weeks) + lecture (2 weeks) |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p<.001) |
20 |
Yang (2018)/ Korea |
43 |
n-RCT/ SN(4); E=25, C=27 |
None |
8 weeks course Scenario: diabetes Demonstration (20 minutes) + task training (30 minutes) + simulation (10 minutes, SP) + debriefing (30 minutes) |
Simple mannequin training |
Communication ability (skill) |
K-HCAT |
The experimental group significantly improvement in communication skills (p=.030) |
Communication self-efficacy |
Park (2014)’s communication self-efficacy scale |
The experimental group significantly improvement in communication self-efficacy (p<.001) |
21 |
Yoon (2018)/ Korea |
44 |
n-RCT/ SN; E=33, C=36 |
None |
2 weeks course Lecture (2 hours) + practice (4 hours): every week Team-based simulation using SBAR Scenario: acute renal failure |
Lecture + nursing skills |
Communication clarity |
Cho (2013)’s modified version of the communication clarity scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication clarity (p=.040) |
22 |
Seong (2018)/ Korea |
45 |
n-RCT/ SN; E=28, C=25 |
None |
2 weeks course Team-based simulation using SBAR Scenario: acute renal failure Lecture (2 hours) + practice (4 hours): every week Pre-briefing (10 minutes) + simulation (10 minutes)+debriefing (30 minutes) |
Lecture + nursing skills |
Communication clarity |
Cho (2013)’s modified version of the communication clarity scale |
The experimental group had increased communication clarity compared to the control group (p=.031) but was not significant in the interaction of time with the group (p=.242) |
23†
|
Park (2018)/ Korea |
46 |
n-RCT/ SN(4); E=132, C=133 |
None |
15 weeks course Team learning simulation (SimMan) with debriefing Senarion: 4 modules |
Unknown |
Communication ability |
Korea educational development institute (2003)’s communication ability scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication ability (p<.001) |
24†
|
Yu (2017)/ Korea |
47 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=31, C=31 |
None |
Lecture + role play + simulation Scenario: hypoglycemic attack, post operative bleeding and dyspnea, acute bronchiolitis, high fever, mental status change, acute myocardial infarction |
Lecture + clinical practice |
Communication clarity |
Cho (2013)’s modified version of the communication clarity scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication clarity (p<.001) |
25 |
Yoon (2017)/ Korea |
48 |
n-RCT/ SN(1); E=36, C=34 |
None |
5 weeks course (2 hours a week) Team-based simulation with debriefing Scenario: acute renal failure |
Lecture + nursing skills |
Communication clarity |
Cho (2013)’s modified version of the communication clarity scale |
No significant in communication clarity (p=.641) |
26†
|
Yang (2016)/ Korea |
49 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=24, C=22 |
None |
5 weeks course Scenario: elderly patients with sensory impairment Discussion of the situation (5∼10 minutes) + simulation (15 minutes, HFS) + debriefing (50 minutes) |
Lectures + practice |
Communication ability (competence) |
GICC |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication competence (p=.046) |
27†
|
Hsu (2015)/ Taiwan |
50 |
RCT/ RN (novice nurses to competent nurses); E=64, C=52 |
Jeffries’ simulation theory Communication theory |
8 session (2 hours a session) Scenario-based simulation course Scenario: discharge planning nurse-patient communication processes |
7 session (2 hours per session) Case-based communication training |
Communication ability (competence) |
CCS |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication competence (p<.001) |
Communication self-efficacy |
CSES |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication self-efficacy (p<.001) |
28†
|
Hur (2015)/ Korea |
51 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=19, C=28 |
Kolb’s experiential learning theory |
7 weeks course (2 hours a week) Scenario: abdominal pain, consciousness change Briefing (10 minutes) + simulation (20 minutes, HFS) + observation of other teams (20 minutes) + debriefing (1 hour) |
Traditional education |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p<.001) |
Communication ability (skill) |
Kim (2010)’s communication skills scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication skill (p<.001) |
29†
|
Kim (2015)/ Korea |
52 |
n-RCT/ SN(4); E=32, C=35 |
None |
Lecture + practice + briefing & demonstration (10 minutes) + simulation (15 minutes, SimMan) + debriefing (60 minutes) Scenario: elderly cognitive impairment |
Lecture + practice |
Communication ability (competence) |
GICC |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication competence (p=.022) |
30†
|
Joo (2015)/ Korea |
53 |
n-RCT/ SN(2); E=48, C=48 |
None |
Simulation (15 minutes, SP) + video debriefing (20 minutes) Scenarios: blood transfusion, side effects of blood transfusion |
Conventional practice |
Communication ability (skill) |
GICC |
No significant in communication skill (p=.149) |
31†
|
Han (2014)/ Korea |
54 |
n-RCT/ SN(2); E=48, C=48 |
None |
6 weeks course Simulation education with LFS, MFS, and HFS Scenario: vital signs, oxygen therapy, and pain |
6 weeks course Small group discussion |
Communication ability |
Developed by the Korea educational development institute |
No significant in communication ability (p=.079) |
32†
|
Hur (2013)/ Korea |
55 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=25, C=27 |
Jeffries’ simulation theory, Kolb’s experiential learning theory, COPA model (selection of learning objectives) |
Prebriefing (10 minutes) + simulation (20 minutes, SimMan) + observation of other team performance (20 minutes) + debriefing (1 hour) Scenario: abdominal pain, change in consciousness level, difficulty breathing |
Conventional education |
Clinical judgment |
LCJR |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p=.001) |
Communication ability (skill) |
The Korean version of the Clinical Simulation Grading Rubric developed by Clark (2006) |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication (p<.001) |
33 |
Durmaz (2012)/ Turkey |
56 |
RCT/ SN(2); E=38, C=38 |
None |
Screen-based computer simulation Scenario: pre-operative. post-operative care management |
Skill laboratories |
Decision making |
CDMNS |
No significant in clinical decision making scores (p=.065) |
34†
|
Ha (2012)/ Korea |
57 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=60, C=58 |
None |
Lecture (30 minutes) + practice (30 minutes) + prebriefing (10 minutes) + simulation (10~15 minutes, HFS) debriefing (30 minutes) Scenario: mechanical ventilation |
Lectures (30 minutes) + practice (30 minutes) |
Clinical judgment |
The self-developed questionnaire |
The experimental group significant improvement in clinical judgment (p=.003) |
35†
|
Kim (2012)/ Korea |
58 |
n-RCT/ SN(3); E=35, C=35 |
None |
3 sessions course Simulation (HFS) with debriefing Scenario: normal delivery, high-risk delivery |
Conventional pre-clinical practice |
Communication ability (skill) |
Yoo (2001)’s communication skill scale |
The experimental group significant improvement in communication skill (p=.020) |
36 |
Zavertnik (2010)/ USA |
59 |
n-RCT/ SN(2); E=20, C=21 |
None |
Practice session (30 minutes) + simulation (60 minutes, SP) Scenario: communication with the families of patients admitted to the intensive care unit |
Lecture (2 times for 1 hour) |
Communication ability (skill) |
The self-developed questionnaire |
No significant in communication skills scores (p=.067) |