Comparing Simulated Patients and Manikin Based Simulation in Obstetrics
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.
調査の概要
詳細な説明
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.
研究の種類
入学 (推定)
段階
- 適用できない
連絡先と場所
研究連絡先
- 名前：Mathias Maleczek, PD Dr.
- 電話番号：+4314040041020
- メール：mathias.maleczek@meduniwien.ac.at
研究連絡先のバックアップ
- 名前：Florian Berger, Dr.
- 電話番号：+4314040041020
- メール：florian.berger@meduniwien.ac.at
研究場所
-
-
State of Vienna
-
Vienna、State of Vienna、オーストリア、1090
- Medical University of Vienna
-
コンタクト：
- Mathias Maleczek, PD Dr.
- 電話番号：+4314040041020
- メール：mathias.maleczek@meduniwien.ac.at
-
-
参加基準
適格基準
就学可能な年齢
健康ボランティアの受け入れ
受講資格のある性別
説明
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.
研究計画
研究はどのように設計されていますか？
デザインの詳細
- 主な目的：他の
- 割り当て：ランダム化
- 介入モデル：並列代入
- マスキング：なし（オープンラベル）
武器と介入
参加者グループ / アーム |
介入・治療 |
|---|---|
|
アクティブコンパレータ：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
他の名前：
|
|
実験的：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 |
この研究は何を測定していますか？
主要な結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
SRS-Score
時間枠：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)
|
二次結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Perceived realism on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
時間枠：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)
時間枠：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
|
協力者と研究者
研究記録日
主要日程の研究
研究開始 (推定)
一次修了 (推定)
研究の完了 (推定)
試験登録日
最初に提出
QC基準を満たした最初の提出物
最初の投稿 (実際)
学習記録の更新
投稿された最後の更新 (実際)
QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました
最終確認日
詳しくは
この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。