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.
연구 개요
상태
정황
상세 설명
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.
연구 유형
등록 (추정된)
단계
- 해당 없음
연락처 및 위치
연구 연락처
- 이름: Mathias Maleczek, PD Dr.
- 전화번호: +4314040041020
- 이메일: mathias.maleczek@meduniwien.ac.at
연구 연락처 백업
- 이름: Florian Berger, Dr.
- 전화번호: +4314040041020
- 이메일: florian.berger@meduniwien.ac.at
연구 장소
-
-
State of Vienna
-
Vienna, State of Vienna, 오스트리아, 1090
- Medical University of Vienna
-
연락하다:
- Mathias Maleczek, PD Dr.
- 전화번호: +4314040041020
- 이메일: mathias.maleczek@meduniwien.ac.at
-
-
참여기준
자격 기준
공부할 수 있는 나이
건강한 자원 봉사자를 받아들입니다
연구 대상 성별
설명
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.
공부 계획
연구는 어떻게 설계됩니까?
디자인 세부사항
- 주 목적: 다른
- 할당: 무작위
- 중재 모델: 병렬 할당
- 마스킹: 없음(오픈 라벨)
무기와 개입
참가자 그룹 / 팔 |
개입 / 치료 |
|---|---|
|
활성 비교기: 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
다른 이름들:
|
|
실험적: 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 |
연구는 무엇을 측정합니까?
주요 결과 측정
결과 측정 |
측정값 설명 |
기간 |
|---|---|---|
|
SRS-Score
기간: 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)
|
2차 결과 측정
결과 측정 |
측정값 설명 |
기간 |
|---|---|---|
|
Perceived realism on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
기간: 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)
기간: 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
|
공동 작업자 및 조사자
연구 기록 날짜
연구 주요 날짜
연구 시작 (추정된)
기본 완료 (추정된)
연구 완료 (추정된)
연구 등록 날짜
최초 제출
QC 기준을 충족하는 최초 제출
처음 게시됨 (실제)
연구 기록 업데이트
마지막 업데이트 게시됨 (실제)
QC 기준을 충족하는 마지막 업데이트 제출
마지막으로 확인됨
추가 정보
이 정보는 변경 없이 clinicaltrials.gov 웹사이트에서 직접 가져온 것입니다. 귀하의 연구 세부 정보를 변경, 제거 또는 업데이트하도록 요청하는 경우 register@clinicaltrials.gov. 문의하십시오. 변경 사항이 clinicaltrials.gov에 구현되는 즉시 저희 웹사이트에도 자동으로 업데이트됩니다. .