ReviewNursing open2025
Analysis and Thinking on the Results of Simulation-Based Hemofiltration Knowledge and Skills Competition for ICU Nurses.
Review in Nursing open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo analyse the performance of the simulation-based hemofiltration knowledge and skills competition and provide a reference for continuously improving clinical nursing skills to reform the teaching methods.
methodsBased on the guidelines, combined with the clinical practical problems and nursing quality control records of the department, the simulation-based hemofiltration knowledge and skills competition was created. The competition consists of two parts: a theoretical knowledge part and a skills part, each accounting for 50% of the total score. The final score is the sum of the scores from both parts. The theoretical knowledge part includes required questions, quick answer questions, and challenge questions, with a base score of 100 points. The skills part evaluates the performance in the whole operation process of continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) from pre-flushing to the end of the treatment, with a full score of 100 points. Structured scoring criteria were used to analyse the main points deducted in nurses' theoretical and practical parts.
resultsA total of 15 nurses participated in the competition and were divided into five teams with 3 nurses in each team. Each group's theoretical competition part (including the basic score of 100 points) has a minimum score of 130 points and a maximum score of 210 points. The pre-flushing and installation time of the skills competition part is 25.60 ± 2.51 min, which is significantly improved from 35.00 ± 1.58 min before the competition (p < 0.01). The main points lost in the theoretical competition part, were pathophysiological knowledge of anticoagulation, characteristics of different hemofiltration modes, acid-base imbalance in regional citrate anticoagulation in CRRT, handling of special alarms and complications associated with repeated catheterization. The main points lost in the skills competition part were touching or interfering with the weighing scales during the startup self-test, incomplete preparation of reinfusion materials, and timeout.
conclusionThe simulation-based hemofiltration knowledge and skills competition improves the hemofiltration skills of ICU nurses and provides the data for analyses of the relevant shortcomings from the competition results and points lost, which may promote the reform of teaching methods, thus providing a reference for the department to continuously improve specialised nursing knowledge and skills in the future and promote the continuous improvement of nursing quality. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.
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.