ArticleScientific reports2025
Effectiveness of tailored educational content on improving nurses' clinical performance in cardiac surgery wards: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac surgery, a complex and high-risk medical procedure, requires specialized nursing expertise. The significance of nurses' performance in this field is paramount due to the potential consequences of errors. Therefore, nurses in cardiac intensive care units (C-ICU) must consistently undergo essential training to minimize errors and enhance their skills. This study aimed to identify the essential educational topics for nurses working in the C-ICU, provide targeted training based on these topics, and ultimately compare the clinical performance of trained nurses with those who did not receive the training. This is a mixed method study conducted in three phases. In the first phase, the educational needs of nurses were identified through a literature review and interview with 360 nurses. Subsequently, the most important educational topics were selected using a two-round Delphi study. In the second phase, a checklist to evaluate clinical performance was designed. In the final phase, 95 nurses were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to either the control group (n = 60) includes untrained nurses, and the case group (n = 35) includes nurses who have received 70 h of training. Thirty case group nurses scoring above 70 advanced to the next phase. Subsequently, both case and control groups spent 6 months in hospital activities before being assessed with a checklist designed in the second phase by eight nurses. In total, 21 educational topics were approved for teaching nurses. In all topics, the mean score of the trained group (case) was higher than that of the control group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the trained group exhibited a mean total score of 883 (± 36.23), whereas the untrained group showed a mean score of 566.45 (± 39.95), indicating a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). The findings of this study indicate that the performance of trained nurses was superior to that of untrained nurses. To enhance the clinical and theoretical capabilities of nurses in critical wards, it is recommended that, in addition to general education, nurses receive specialized training tailored to the specific requirements of their respective wards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.