Evaluating the Impact of High Fidelity Patient Simulation on Clinical Reasoning in Undergraduate Nursing Students

Abstract

Introduction: Graduate nurses must enter nursing with clinical reasoning skills that will allow them to appropriately care for patients. With limited clinical sites, nurse educators are challenged to graduate clinically-competent nurses who possess clinical reasoning skills that will allow them to appropriately care for patients. The use of high fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) as an adjunct to clinical experiences may be a solution, but previous studies have shown limited evidence that HFPS improves clinical reasoning in nursing students. A variety of tools have been used to measure clinical reasoning (or one of its components). However, most of them were not specific to nursing. Without a consistent, nursing-specific tool, exploration of HFPS effects on clinical reasoning skills is challenging. The Nursing Specific Script Concordance Test (NSSCT), a validated nursing-specific tool measuring clinical reasoning, was used for this study. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of HFPS on the clinical reasoning skills of first-semester, pre-licensure, Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) students. Two specific aims were explored: 1) determine whether teaching with HFPS scenarios improved the clinical reasoning skills of pre-licensure, first semester BSN students, and 2) determine whether the NSSCT detected a significant difference in NSSCT mean scores before and after HFPS scenarios. Methods: This study used a two-group, randomized crossover design with 14 first-semester, pre-licensure, BSN students (n = 8; n = 6). Each participant took a baseline NSSCT, followed by the experimental group participating three simulation scenarios and the control group participating in the standard curriculum only. Then a second NSSCT was administered to each participant. Then, the control group participated in the three simulation scenarios while the experimental group participated in the standard curriculum only. Then, a third NSSCT was administered. NSSCT mean scores were compared between and within the groups after each administration. Results: There were no statistical differences (p = 0.494) in mean NSSCT scores in pre-licensure, first-semester, BSN, students after participating in HFPS scenarios, inferring that in this sample, HFPS did not significantly increase clinical reasoning. There were no statistical differences in mean NSSCT scores (p = 0.064) between the control group and experimental group after the second NSSCT administration, suggesting that the clinical reasoning skills were not different between students who completed the three simulation scenarios versus students who participated in the standard curriculum alone. Finally, there were no statistical differences (p = 0.596) between the control group and experimental group after all participants completed the three simulation experiences. Conclusions: The results from this study did not conclude that HFPS improved clinical reasoning in first-semester, pre-licensure, BSN students. However, due to the limitations of this study (small sample size [n = 14], test/retest reliability, and history) a replication study with modifications should be considered to fully examine the effect of HFPS on clinical reasoning in pre-licensure, BSN students.