Comparing Simulated Patients and Manikin Based Simulation in Obstetrics

September 30, 2026 updated by: Mathias Maleczek, Medical University of Vienna

Effect of Manikin and Simulated-Patient Realism on Training Experience and Performance in Emergency Team Training: A Mixed-Methods Research Programme: Substudy C - Simulated Patient vs. MamaAnne for PPH and Eclampsia Team Training

The aim of this randomized study is to compare a live, trained simulated patient with a high-fidelity manikin in obstetric emergency team training using two standardized scenarios. The participants in this study are intact clinical teams (e.g., obstetrics, anesthesiology, and nursing/midwifery staff routinely working together in obstetric emergencies) and are recruited as a unit. Each team will either have both scenarios with the live, trained standard patient or the high fidelity manikin. Both scenarios are standardized: One scenario is about post-partum hemorrhage (PPH), a severe bleeding after giving birth, and the other scenario is about eclampsia, an emergency in obstetrics that causes hypertensive crisis and seizures. The order of scenarios is random. After each scenario all team members fill out questionnaires about realism and cognitive stress. After the second debriefing, a focus group of approximately 15 minutes is conducted with each team with a standardized procedure and questions.

Study Overview

Status

Not yet recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The focus group is led by a moderator who did not facilitate either debriefing and who holds no supervisory relationship to any participant. A short semi-structured guide of five questions is used. The focus group is a separate element of the study and is not one of the two debriefings; it begins only once the second debriefing has been formally closed.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

72

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Individual inclusion criteria are: physician, midwife, registered nurse, or paramedic; current clinical duties in obstetric or peripartum emergency care
  • written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Pregnancy
  • Exclusion criteria are pregnancy and prior participation in a simulation study using the same obstetric scenarios.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Trained Simulated Patient

Both scenarios portrayed by a trained Simulated Patient (PPH: verbalized pain/distress, simulated blood loss via MamaNatalie; eclampsia: seizure activity, verbal responses where clinically appropriate, hypertensive crisis presentation).

Trained, standardized patient portraying obstetric woman with MamaNatalie simulator

Other Names:
  • Arm 1: Standardized Patient
Experimental: High-fidelity Manikin

Both scenarios portrayed by a high fidelity obstetric manikin (PPH: verbalized pain/distress, simulated blood loss via MamaAnne; eclampsia: seizure activity, verbal responses where clinically appropriate, hypertensive crisis presentation).

Patient portrayed by high fidelity obstetric manikin MamaAnne

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
SRS-Score
Time Frame: Immediately after each scenario (scenario 1 and scenario 2, on the day of training)

Perceived realism of the simulation measured with the Simulation Realism Scale (SRS), completed individually by every team member after each of the two scenarios. Score range [min] to [max]; higher scores indicate greater perceived realism.

Immediately after each scenario (scenario 1 and scenario 2, on the day of training)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Perceived realism on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
Time Frame: Immediately after each scenario (scenario 1 and scenario 2, on the day of training)

Single-item perceived realism rated on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) from 0 (not realistic at all) to 10 (completely realistic); higher scores indicate greater perceived realism. Completed individually by every team member after each scenario.

Immediately after each scenario (scenario 1 and scenario 2, on the day of training)
Themes on perceived realism and training experience (reflexive thematic analysis of focus groups)
Time Frame: Immediately after the debriefing of the second scenario, on the day of training

Debriefing and focus group transcripts are analyzed together using reflexive thematic analysis. Two researchers code independently; a codebook is developed after the first four teams and applied to the remainder, with discrepancies resolved in consensus discussion and a third researcher consulted where consensus is not reached. Coders are not blinded to modality, since modality is evident from the transcript; this is reported as a limitation. Analytic adequacy is judged against information power rather than data saturation, taking into account the narrow study aim, the high specificity of the sample, and the use of an established theoretical frame.

Immediately after the debriefing of the second scenario, on the day of training

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

October 15, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

January 1, 2029

Study Completion (Estimated)

January 1, 2029

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 24, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 30, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

October 5, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

October 5, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 30, 2026

Last Verified

September 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Fidelity C

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.