Comparing Intravenous Insertion Instructional Methods with Haptic Simulators

Lenora A McWilliams, Ann Malecha, Lenora A McWilliams, Ann Malecha

Abstract

Objective. The objective of this review was to compare traditional intravenous (IV) insertion instructional methods with the use of haptic IV simulators. Design. An integrative research design was used to analyze the current literature. Data Sources. A search was conducted using key words intravenous (IV) insertion or cannulation or venipuncture and simulation from 2000 to 2015 in the English language. The databases included Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Education Resource Information Center, and Medline. Review Methods. Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) strategies were used to critique the articles for themes and similarities. Results. Comparisons of outcomes between traditional IV instructional methods and the use of haptic IV simulators continue to show various results. Positive results indicate that the use of the haptic IV simulator decreases both band constriction and total procedure time. While students are satisfied with practicing on the haptic simulators, they still desire faculty involvement. Conclusion. Combining the haptic IV simulator with practical experience on the IV arm may be the best practice for learning IV insertion. Research employing active learning strategies while using a haptic IV simulator during the learning process may reduce cost and faculty time.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Jones R. S., Simmons A., Boykin G. L., Stamper D., Thompson J. C. Measuring intravenous cannulation skills of practical nursing students using rubber mannequin intravenous training arms. Military Medicine. 2014;179(11):1361–1367. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00576.
    1. Da Silva G. A., Priebe S., Dias F. N. Benefits of establishing an intravenous team and the standardization of peripheral intravenous catheters. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2010;33(3):156–160. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0b013e3181d9c942.
    1. Wilfong D. N., Falsetti D. J., McKinnon J. L., Daniel L. H., Wan Q. The effects of virtual intravenous and patient simulator training compared to the traditional approach of teaching nurses. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2011;34(1):55–62. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0b013e31820219e2.
    1. Reinhardt A. C., Mullins I. L., De Blieck C., Schultz P. IV insertion simulation: confidence, skill, and performance. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2012;8(5):e157–e167. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2010.09.001.
    1. Bowyer M., Pimentel E., Fellows J., et al. Teaching intravenous cannulation to medical students: comparative analysis of two simulators and two traditional educational approaches. (Studies in Health Technology & Informatics).Ebook: Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 13. 2005;111:57–63. .
    1. Engum S. A., Jeffries P., Fisher L. Intravenous catheter training system: computer-based education versus traditional learning methods. The American Journal of Surgery. 2003;186(1):67–74. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(03)00109-0.
    1. Sotto J., Ayuste E., Bowyer M., et al. Exporting simulation technology to the Philippines: a comparative study of traditional versus simulated methods for teaching intravenous cannulation. Studies in Health Technology & Informatics. 2009;17:346–351. doi: 10.3233/978-1-58603-964-6-346.
    1. Jung E.-Y., Park D. K., Lee Y. H., Jo H. S., Lim Y. S., Park R. W. Evaluation of practical exercises using an intravenous simulator incorporating virtual reality and haptics device technologies. Nurse Education Today. 2012;32(4):458–463. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.05.012.
    1. Jamison R. J., Hovancsek M. T., Clochesy J. M. A pilot study assessing simulation using two simulation methods for teaching intravenous cannulation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2006;2(1):e9–e12. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2009.05.007.
    1. Johannesson E., Olsson M., Petersson G., Silén C. Learning features in computer simulation skills training. Nurse Education in Practice. 2010;10(5):268–273. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2009.11.018.
    1. Rutherford-Hemming T. Simulation methodology in nursing education and adult learning theory. Adult Learning. 2012;23(3):129–137. doi: 10.1177/1045159512452848.
    1. Sportsman S. Competency education and validation in the United States: what should nurses know? Nursing forum. 2010;45(3):140–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6198.2010.00183.x.
    1. Chang K. K.-P., Chung J. W.-Y., Wong T. K.-S. Learning intravenous cannulation: a comparison of the conventional method and the CathSim Intravenous Training System. The Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2002;11(1):73–78. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2002.00561.x.
    1. Whittemore R., Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2005;52(5):546–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x.
    1. Reyes S. D., Stillsmoking K., Chadwick-Hopkins D. Implementation and evaluation of a virtual simulator system: teaching intravenous skills. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2008;4(1):e43–e49. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2009.05.055.
    1. Loukas C., Nikiteas N., Kanakis M., Georgiou E. Evaluating the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation training in intravenous cannulation. Simulation in Healthcare. 2011;6(4):213–217. doi: 10.1097/sih.0b013e31821d08a9.
    1. Jacobson A. F., Winslow E. H. Variables influencing intravenous catheter insertion difficulty and failure: an analysis of 339 intravenous catheter insertions. Heart and Lung: Journal of Acute and Critical Care. 2005;34(5):345–359. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2005.04.002.
    1. Decker S., Sportsman S., Puetz L., Billings L. The evolution of simulation and its contribution to competency. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2008;39(2):74–80. doi: 10.3928/00220124-20080201-06.
    1. Alexandrou E., Ramjan L., Murphy J., Hunt L., Betihavas V., Frost S. A. Training of undergraduate clinicians in vascular access: an integrative review. JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access. 2012;17(3):146–158. doi: 10.1016/j.java.2012.07.001.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner