此页面是自动翻译的,不保证翻译的准确性。请参阅 英文版 对于源文本。

Comparing Simulated Patients and Manikin Based Simulation in Obstetrics

2026年9月30日 更新者: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.

研究概览

详细说明

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.

研究类型

介入性

注册 (估计的)

72

阶段

  • 不适用

联系人和位置

本节提供了进行研究的人员的详细联系信息,以及有关进行该研究的地点的信息。

学习联系方式

研究联系人备份

学习地点

参与标准

研究人员寻找符合特定描述的人,称为资格标准。这些标准的一些例子是一个人的一般健康状况或先前的治疗。

资格标准

适合学习的年龄

18年 及以上 (成人、年长者)

接受健康志愿者

是的

有资格学习的性别

全部

描述

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.

学习计划

本节提供研究计划的详细信息,包括研究的设计方式和研究的衡量标准。

研究是如何设计的?

设计细节

  • 主要用途:其他
  • 分配:随机化
  • 介入模型:并行分配
  • 屏蔽:无(打开标签)

武器和干预

参与者组/臂
干预/治疗
有源比较器: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

其他名称:
  • Arm 1: Standardized Patient
实验性的: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

研究衡量的是什么?

主要结果指标

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
SRS-Score
大体时间: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)

次要结果测量

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Perceived realism on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
大体时间: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)
大体时间: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

合作者和调查者

在这里您可以找到参与这项研究的人员和组织。

研究记录日期

这些日期跟踪向 ClinicalTrials.gov 提交研究记录和摘要结果的进度。研究记录和报告的结果由国家医学图书馆 (NLM) 审查,以确保它们在发布到公共网站之前符合特定的质量控制标准。

研究主要日期

学习开始 (估计的)

2026年10月15日

初级完成 (估计的)

2029年1月1日

研究完成 (估计的)

2029年1月1日

研究注册日期

首次提交

2026年9月24日

首先提交符合 QC 标准的

2026年9月30日

首次发布 (实际的)

2026年10月5日

研究记录更新

最后更新发布 (实际的)

2026年10月5日

上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新

2026年9月30日

最后验证

2026年9月1日

更多信息

与本研究相关的术语

计划个人参与者数据 (IPD)

计划共享个人参与者数据 (IPD)?

不

药物和器械信息、研究文件

研究美国 FDA 监管的药品

不

研究美国 FDA 监管的设备产品

不

此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索,没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求,请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改,我们的网站上也会自动更新.

订阅