Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Developing and evaluating an in situ, simulated emergency training course for nurses with low seniority.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to construct and implement an in situ simulated emergency training (SET) course for nurses with low seniority and evaluate its effectiveness.
methodsThis was an experimental study, and a purpose-sampling method was adopted. We selected 82 nurses with less than 5 years of experience working in a grade - III Class A hospital in Hubei province from August to December 2023 as the research objects, and randomly divided them into intervention group (n = 37) and control group (n = 45). The control group underwent routine stratified training, whereas the intervention group underwent in situ SET based on routine stratified training. Before and after training, we compared differences in the scores of the intervention and control groups in terms of critical thinking (CT), clinical communication (CC), clinical reasoning (CR), and first aid (FA).
resultsThe constructed in situ simulated emergency training course consisted of nine courses, each of which covered one theme. The nine themes were acute myocardial infarction, diabetic ketoacidosis, secondary shock due to acute transfusion anaphylaxis, post-operative respiratory depression combined with pulmonary edema, unplanned extubation, impulsive violence, chemotherapeutic drug extravasation, patient suicide, and acute pulmonary embolism. The results of the empirical study showed that before training, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in the scores for the following abilities: CT, CC, CR, and FA (p > 0.05). After training, the scores for CR and FA in the intervention group were higher than those in the control group (p < 0.05), while the scores for CT and CC did not differ from those in the control group (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe content of the in situ SET course is comprehensive, which is helpful in improving junior nurses' CC and FA abilities and can serve as a reference for establishing a training course for them. However, the effects on the CT and CC were not significant. Further empirical studies are required to explore the targeted training courses.
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.