Practicing for Practice: Accelerated Second Baccalaureate Degree Nursing (ABSN) Students Evaluate Simulations

doi: 10.5480/12-847.1Accelerated, second baccalaureate degree nursing (ABSN) programs require effective and efficient teaching approaches that prepare stu- dents for cutting-edge practice. Using simulation with these adult learners can help accomplish those educational goals. This article sum- marizes a pilot educational evaluation project that assesses students' satisfaction with six simulations in the ABSN program.There is an extensive body of research about simulation in nursing education where undergraduate students' learning is the focus (Abdo & Ravert, 2006; Garrett, MacPhee, & Jackson, 2010; Wotton, Davis, Button, & Kelton, 2010). The simulation laboratory has been used to develop and pilot test a rubric to assess students' clinical judgment (Lasater, 2007). In addition, research reviews have been conducted. Cant and Cooper (2010) reviewed 12 experimental or quasi-experimental studies that examined the effectiveness of simula- tion as a teaching/learning strategy. Weaver (2011) reviewed 24 studies on high-fidelity patient simulation and found benefits (e.g., realism, learner satisfaction) and mixed findings for student confidence and stress.Only five studies were found where simulation was examined with ABSN students. Howard, Ross, Mitchell, and Nelson (2010) com- pared the impact of simulation versus interactive case studies on stu- dent knowledge scores. Piscotty, Grobbel, and Tzeng (2011) conducted a quasi-experimental study examining the effect of a student-led simulation on student performance in the six Quality and Safety Education in Nursing competency areas. Radhakrishnan, Roche, and Cunningham (2007) reported findings of a pilot study investigating the impact of simulation on clinical performance. Cangelosi (2008) described a hermeneutic phenomenological study in which enacted narrative learning was investigated for its utility in helping students integrate classroom content and clinical practice. Finally, Wilt and King (2012) analyzed students' quantitative evaluation of simulation. The project summarized in this article adds to the existing literature by reporting end-of-program student satisfaction with six simulations used throughout their curriculum.Using a primarily traditional classroom format, this 12-month ABSN program was offered in an upper-Midwest comprehensive pub- lic university with 11,000 students. During the project, the simulation lab contained 22 bed spaces, two simulation rooms, one high-fidelity patient simulator, and several midrange simulators. Six simulations rep- resenting three of the four terms in the ABSN program were assessed: a) Care of Patient with an Infected Chest Tube Site, b) Post-Operative Care, c) Plan of Care Assignment, d) Physical Assessment Check-Off, e) Care of Patient with Hepatic Failure, and f) Care of Patient with Cardiac Disease.methodA mixed-method descriptive survey design was used; approval was obtained from the university's institutional review board. An inves- tigator-designed survey, the Student Evaluation of Simulation (SES), was used for this project. For each of the six simulations, students responded to one quantitative item ("This simulated experience helped me learn about the nursing care of patients") using a 1-6 mod- ified semantic differential scale ranging from Minimally Helpful (1) to Very Helpful (6), with a No Recall option. They also responded to two qualitative items: "What did you like about this simulated experi- ence? " and "What things would make this experience more beneficial for you? "Using convenience sampling, data were collected in the final month of the program, in May 2011, from 17 of 18 students in one cohort. All 17 students responded to every question. However, five respondents had no recall of the Plan of Care Assignment, three had no recall of the Infected Chest Tube simulation, and one respondent had no recall of the Physical Assessment Check-Off. The students completed the SES anonymously and submitted it to a faculty member who was not a member of the project team. …