Next Article in Journal
A Cross-Sectional Study of the Perception of Individualized Nursing Care Among Nurses in Acute Medical and Perioperative Settings
Previous Article in Journal
Knowing, Being and Becoming a Person-Centred Nurse Leader: Findings from a Transformative Professional Development Programme
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nursing Reports
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/nursrep14040231
nursrep-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nursing Students’ Satisfaction with Clinical Simulation: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

by
Juan Antonio Jiménez-Álvarez
1,
María Dolores Guerra-Martín
2,3,* and
Álvaro Borrallo-Riego
2,3
1
Nursing Department, Osuna University School, 41640 Osuna, Spain
2
Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
3
Institute of Biomedicine of Seville (IBiS), Antonio Maura Montaner Street, 41013 Seville, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14(4), 3178-3190; https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040231
Submission received: 18 September 2024 / Revised: 22 October 2024 / Accepted: 23 October 2024 / Published: 25 October 2024
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Clinical Simulation improves results in the students’ learning tests and allows for preserving acquired knowledge for longer periods of time, promoting more significant learning. This study was conducted to analyze Nursing students’ satisfaction with Clinical Simulation in three centres attached to a university from southern Spain. Methods: A quantitative, non-experimental and cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out. The students included were attending their third year of the Nursing undergraduate course and had already taken part in training sessions by means of Clinical Simulation. The Satisfaction Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation in Students (SSHF) was used for data collection. This scale has been validated and has 33 items grouped into eight factors. The SPSS software (version 28), was used for data analysis, establishing p-values < 0.05 for the statistically significant differences. Results: The participants were 180 students, with a mean age of 22.17 years old. Of them, 90.56% belonged to the female gender. A mean score of 3.82 out of 5 was obtained in the SSHF items. The items that obtained the highest scores were the following: benefits of Clinical Simulation as it relates theory with practise; possibility of learning based on the mistakes made; and comfort and respect while the sessions were developed. The item that obtained the lowest score was “timing for each simulation case”. We found significant differences in the results obtained according to each attached centre. Conclusions: The students showed high satisfaction levels regarding High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation in each of the three attached centres included in the study. Nevertheless, they stated the need to invest more time in Clinical Simulation sessions.

1. Introduction

The implementation of Clinical Simulation (CS) services is an indicator evidencing the quality of a teaching institution [1]. The students that take part in CS sessions attain more significant learning when compared to those that follow more traditional techniques. In addition, they improve their results in the learning tests and keep the acquired knowledge for longer periods of time [2,3,4,5,6].
CS is a teaching methodology that seeks to integrate students into an environment that simulates experiences from the clinical reality [7,8,9], and is ideal to encourage learning due to its safe and reproducible nature [10]. Given its methodological versatility and capability to monitor progress, CS constitutes an optimum means of mitigating the gap between theoretical learning and actual professional practise [11,12]. There are different types of CS: 1. Low-fidelity CS, which is generally used to acquire basic knowledge and skills in a concrete and specific human body area. 2. Medium-fidelity CS, which allows the representing of a body area along with fairly simple computer programs to develop a specific competence. 3. High-fidelity CS, where the devices offer the possibility of creating realistic clinical settings, allowing for the development of basic and advanced competences [13,14,15].
CS presents various advantages: on the one hand, it allows for creating immersive settings that enable developing technical dexterities and foster analysis ability for making and prioritizing critical decisions [16,17]. On the other hand, it promotes communicative competences, especially in multidisciplinary contexts, which helps improve the interaction with patients and collaborative work with the peers that take part in the simulated activity [12,18].
However, CS presents some disadvantages, such as the need to spend subsequent time to allow for the students’ reflection on the updates made (debriefing) [19], although some authors consider this reflection time very necessary to improve practise and achieve the highest quality [2]. Another inconvenience is the high costs that not all institutions can afford [20], although low- and medium-fidelity CS devices are by far less expensive than high-fidelity CS equipment [21].
CS has consolidated itself as a powerful methodology for training future nurses, allowing them to face actual clinical environments with greater self-confidence and competence [22,23]. In order to conduct real-time CS sessions, the students are asked to prioritize their actions and to make quick decisions, which promotes critical and clinical reasoning [16,24]. Consequently, better care quality is fostered, minimizing future errors and their possible negative repercussions [25].
The students’ satisfaction is one of the indicators to considerer when assessing the quality and efficiency of their learning [26,27,28]. High satisfaction levels among students increase their motivation, assisting in their acquisition of practical skills that are essential for their professional performance [29,30]. In other studies, CS enhances students’ satisfaction as long as the necessary equipment is available and the settings are designed based on their previous knowledge [31,32].
Assessing the students’ satisfaction with CS offers important information to analyze the extent to which their expectations are met, as well as to determine improvement areas. All of the aforementioned allows for designing more adequate settings and planning more effective CS sessions [16,26,33].
Various authors mention the need to foster research on the students’ satisfaction with CS to assess both the effectiveness of this teaching methodology and its effect when compared to others [34,35,36].
In the Spanish context, academic training for Nursing consists of a university course lasting four years with 240 European Credit Transfer System credits [37], where CS is used as a teaching methodology for the development of training and evaluative activities for a simulated demonstration of the competences acquired [16,38,39,40,41,42,43].
The objective of this study is to analyze Nursing students’ satisfaction with CS in three centres attached to a university from southern Spain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

A quantitative, non-experimental and cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted [44]. To respond to the objective of this research, the following actions were carried out: 1. Characterization of the sample of students based on the independent variables, being gender, age and study centre; 2. Description of the students’ satisfaction level with CS according to the items and factors from the Satisfaction Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation in Students (SSHF); and 3. Comparison of the students’ satisfaction levels with CS across the different participating centres, according to the SSHF factors.
The students invited to take part in the study were those attending their third year of the Nursing course at three centres attached to a public university located in southern Spain, during the 2022–2023 academic year. The final sample comprised 180 students. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of participants.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1. Students enrolled in the third year of the Nursing course at any of the participating centres; and 2. Students that had already taken part in training sessions by means of CS. For the sample calculation, the total population of the three centres and the inclusion criteria were considered. Three clusters were subsequently formed, one for each center [45].

2.2. Instrument

To assess the Nursing students’ satisfaction with the CS service, the Satisfaction Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation in Students (SSHF) was used, which was validated in Spanish by a multidisciplinary team comprising experts, obtaining a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.92 [38]. SSHF has 33 items with a Likert-type scale that offer five answer options: 1. Strongly disagree. 2. Disagree. 3. Indifferent. 4. Agree. 5. Strongly agree. Options 1 and 2 correspond to low satisfaction, and options 4 and 5 represent high satisfaction, except for item 13, where scores of 4 and 5 indicate low satisfaction. The items from this scale are divided into eight factors to assess satisfaction: 1. Simulation utility. 2. Characteristics of cases and applications. 3. Communication. 4. Self-reflection on performance. 5. Self-confidence. 6. Relation between theory and practise. 7. Facilities and equipment. 8. Negative aspects of simulation (this last factor only includes item 13) [16,38,39]. Table 1 shows the SSHF scale, with its items and associated factors.

2.3. Data Collection

The scale was administered to students who had taken the “Life Support” subject, with a total of ten sessions of two hours each. The three centres were located in different geographical locations but had similar characteristics in terms of students, teaching plans and facilities/equipment. In terms of facilities, all three centres have rooms to simulate hospital or home care environments, as well as a room for debriefing. In terms of equipment, these centres have task trainers and mannequins, including full-body ones and interactive electronic devices.
For data collection, a questionnaire was applied between December 2022 and February 2023; it included questions to collect the sociodemographic variables (gender, age and origin attached centre) and the SSHF questions.
The questionnaire was applied to the students in paper format at each of the attached centres, after the school hours. The training was carried out by previously contacting the coordinators of the academic disciplines, who taught part of their lessons with the CS methodology. After obtaining the coordinators’ approval, the location and time for data collection was defined. The students were duly informed verbally and in writing (information sheet) about the study objectives and the voluntary nature of their participation. In addition, they were asked to provide their informed consent to take part in this study.

2.4. Data Analysis

The SPSS software, version 28 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for the statistical analysis. A descriptive analysis of the answer frequencies was performed for each item, calculating the mean values and standard deviations for each scale item and for all eight associated factors. For the associated factors, the medians and interquartile ranges were also calculated. To calculate the scores for the items and factors, the values given on the Likert scale were considered. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the SSHF items according to each attached centre. Non-parametric statistics were used after applying the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and obtaining that the data sample did not follow a normal distribution. p-values < 0.05 were established as statistically significant differences [45].

2.5. Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Andalusian Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (Date: 24 November 2022, Code: 1310-N-22) and was conducted according to the criteria set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki [46]. Prior to initiating the research, the SSHF validation study authors were asked due permission, obtaining their consent. In addition, authorization was obtained from the directors of the participating attached centres before data collection.
Participation was voluntary, and the students were informed that they may withdraw from the study at any time. They were assured that participating in this study would mean no risk to, nor exert any influence on, their grades.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Students

The sample was composed of 180 students attending their third year of the Nursing course in three centres [Centre A: 65 (36.11%); Centre B: 45 (25%); Centre C: 70 (38.89%)]. The mean age of the sample was 22.17 years old (SD = 3.29; range = 19–45), with 90.56% (n = 163) being women; both values were similar for all participants. Table 2 describes the mean age, standard deviation, age range and percentage of women per center.

3.2. Students’ Satisfaction Levels Regarding Clinical Simulation According to the SSHF Items and Factors

As a first step, the students’ Satisfaction Level with CS is described according to the SSHF items and factors in the entire sample, including all three participating centres. In relation to the items, a mean score of 3.82 out of 5 was obtained. Item 14 (CS is helpful as it relates theory with practise) was the one that reached the highest scores. High scores were also obtained in item 6 (I felt comfortable and respected during the sessions) and in item 31 (CS will allow me to learn from the mistakes I made). To the contrary, item 4 (Is timing for each simulation case adequate?) and item 22 (It improves communication with the family) obtained the lowest scores. Table 3 shows the results from the entire sample in each SSHF item.
Regarding the results of the SSHF factors in the entire sample, the mean of the items included in each factor was calculated. In this sense, the factors that obtained the highest mean scores were Factor 2 (Characteristics of cases and applications), Factor 8 (Negative aspects of simulation) and Factor 4 (Self-reflection on performance), with this latter one obtaining the highest score: 4.09. To the contrary, Factor 6 (Relation between theory and practise) and item 7 (Facilities and equipment) obtained the lowest scores: 3.65 and 3.72, respectively.
As a second step, the students’ Satisfaction Level with CS is described according to the SSHF items and factors in each participating centre. As for the items, in Centre A, item 6 (I felt comfortable and respected during the sessions) obtained the highest score. In Centre B, items 2 (Are the case simulation objectives clear?), 14 (Simulation is helpful as it relates theory with practise) and 31 (Simulation will allow me to learn from the mistakes I made) were equal in reaching the highest scores. Item 14 also obtained the highest score in Centre C. Item 4 (Is timing for each simulation case adequate?) was the one with the lowest score in all three centres. Table 3 shows the results according to the SSHF items in each centre.
Regarding the results of the SSHF factors, the following values were obtained in each centre: In Centres A and B, Factor 4 (Self-reflection on performance) was the one that obtained the highest mean score. In Centre C, Factor 8 (Negative aspects of simulation) obtained the highest score. On the other hand, the lowest scores were obtained in the following cases: Centre A, Factor 1 (Simulation utility); Centre B, Factor 7 (Facilities and equipment); Centre C, Factor 6 (Relation between theory and practise). Regarding the medians, a value of 4.0 was obtained in all factors, regardless of the center. There was only one exception, being factor 8 of center C, with a median of 4.5. Table 4 includes the mean values, standard deviations, medians and interquartile ranges corresponding to the SSHF factors in each centre.

3.3. Comparison of the Students’ Satisfaction Levels with Clinical Simulation Across the Different Participating Centres, According to the SSHF Factors

The following results were obtained when comparing the students’ satisfaction levels with CS across the different centres according to the SSHF factors: on the one hand, Centre C reached the highest average range across all factors. On the other hand, statistically significant differences were detected: 1. In factors 3, 5, 7 and 8, differences were noticed between Centre B and Centre C, with better scores obtained in Centre C in all cases. 2. In factors 1 and 8, between centres A and C, with better results again obtained in the latter. 3. In Factor 7 between centres A and B, with better results in the former. Likewise, in Factors 2, 4 and 6, no significant differences were detected among the centres (Table 5).

4. Discussion

The data obtained in our study show that the students have expressed high satisfaction levels regarding CS as a methodology. These results are in line with other studies about Nursing students’ satisfaction with CS [9,11].
The students have mostly stated agreement that CS helps relate theory with practise; this item is the best assessed in the entire sample and obtains the highest score in Centre C. Other authors agree with this result. Baptista et al. [47] and Sánchez Maldonado et al. [9] describe the benefit that CS contributes to the students when the theoretical knowledge learned in the classroom is put into practise. In addition, Moreno-Cámara et al. [48] assert that CS allows students to act and think as if it were a real-life case, which helps foster understanding of the patient according to the case, and applying the theory learned to the practise in order to seek the best care possible.
The students expressed high satisfaction levels regarding the comfort and respect they felt during the CS sessions, which is in line with other authors [39,42]. Likewise, other authors set forth the importance of respect among the students and their comfort during the CS sessions [49,50,51].
Most of the students proved to be highly satisfied with the capabilities provided by CS, as it allows them to make mistakes and learn from them, which is in consonance with other studies [33,40]. Some authors mention that, if complemented with positive feedback by the teacher, the possible errors made during CS allow for the promotion of more significant learning without endangering patients’ lives [30].
The students stated feeling scarcely satisfied with the time devoted to the CS sessions. The same happens in other studies, such as those conducted by Sánchez Maldonado et al. [9] and by Astudillo-Araya et al. [52]. In this sense, Horsley et al. [53] consider time as an important factor to be taken into account in CS. These authors recommend adapting the simulation time to the number of students and their knowledge level. Likewise, low satisfaction levels were also stated regarding the usefulness of CS in improving communication with the family. These findings coincide with various authors, who assert that these values can be influenced by the absence of specific objectives when addressing this aspect in the simulation designs, so they must be incorporated [40,41].
In some of the centres, the students expressed high satisfaction in relation to the clarity of the simulation objectives. In this sense, The International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning Standards Committee [54] indicates that it is indispensable to deal with the CS session objectives clearly during debriefing for the students’ proper learning.
Referring to the factors, the students stated that they were satisfied with the characteristics of the cases presented and their applications. Some authors, like Ruiz Vera and Martini [55], highlight the importance of designing CS settings that are suitable for the learning objectives or strategies that the students have to learn. Olaussen et al. [32] coincidentally mentioned the need for these settings to be adapted to the students’ knowledge level. These factors exert an effect on the students’ stress and anxiety levels while the CS sessions are developed, with an impact on their satisfaction [35,56].
Another factor that achieved high satisfaction rates was the one related to Self-reflection on performance. In this sense, other authors such as Ming Chow et al. [35] describe the importance of debriefing after a CS session, which allows the students to reflect both on their performance during the simulation and on the possible improvements that they might apply in their practise. In addition, Boostel et al. [57] highlights the usefulness of CS as an opportunity to place the students in unprecedented settings while they are developing their clinical practises.
The students indicated low satisfaction levels for the factor that made a reference to facilities and equipment. Some authors, such as Li et al. [31], indicate that a lack of sufficient equipment can impose the need to turn some students into observers, leading to a reduction in their satisfaction levels when compared to those that are active participants in the setting [58]. In this sense, proper planning of the simulation scenario is necessary, providing a clear description of it (people who will participate and necessary equipment and facilities) [2]. In addition, other authors, such as Cura et al. [20], point out that the students who are offered high-fidelity CS achieve greater satisfaction levels than those who participate in low- or medium-fidelity CS sessions.
Some students reported low satisfaction regarding usefulness of the simulations. Nevertheless, other authors describe the utility of CS as a methodology that allows students to make mistakes and reflect on them, in addition to increasing the students’ responsibility for their own learning in a safe environment closer to reality [17,59].
In general, the students agree that CS increases their concern about the competences inherent to nurses, with higher results found in Centre C. These findings are in line with those of various authors [39,41]. CS promotes the acquisition of competencies and skills, such as empathy and leadership development. This implies the possibility of experiencing situations that do not commonly occur in practise, which could increase the student’s initial concern. However, CS allows the creation of safe environments for students to acquire these skills and abilities, with the possibility of making mistakes and without prejudice to patients [2,3].

Limitations

Several limitations were found in the current study. Firstly, despite including several study centres, the sample size was limited both in number and in geographical dispersion. It is for this reason that future studies should consider the possibility of using larger samples that allow generalization of the data obtained. Secondly, data collection was conducted by means of a self-applied questionnaire. This procedure may have caused biases based on each student’s understanding of the information requested. Thirdly, no long-term assessment was carried out, which is one reason why the possibility of conducting longitudinal studies about this theme in the future should be considered. Fourthly, repeating students have not been considered as an exclusion criterion, which may influence the results. Finally, it should be noted that the results of this research provide important information that can be taken into account by managers of university Nursing centres, in order to implement improvement strategies in Clinical Simulation services.

5. Conclusions

In general, the Nursing students proved to be highly satisfied with CS in the entire sample. They showed themselves very satisfied with the ability of CS to integrate theoretical and practical knowledge, as well as to be able to learn from their own mistakes. Likewise, they were extremely satisfied with the characteristics of the cases and their applications, as well as with their self-reflection on their own performance. However, they indicated lower satisfaction levels regarding the facilities and equipment available, in addition to requesting that more time should be devoted to the CS sessions. Finally, it should be noted that, in the comparison among the teaching centres, Centre C is the one that obtained the best results in all the SSHF factors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D.G.-M. and J.A.J.-Á.; methodology, M.D.G.-M. and Á.B.-R.; software, J.A.J.-Á. and Á.B.-R.; formal analysis, M.D.G.-M. and Á.B.-R.; investigation, J.A.J.-Á.; resources, M.D.G.-M.; data curation, J.A.J.-Á. and Á.B.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D.G.-M.; writing—review and editing, M.D.G.-M. and Á.B.-R.; visualization, J.A.J.-Á. and Á.B.-R.; supervision, M.D.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Andalusian Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (Date: 24 November 2022, Code: 1310-N-22).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Public Involvement Statement

No public involvement was utilized in any aspect of this research.

Guidelines and Standards Statement

This manuscript was drafted against the Checklist for reporting results using observational descriptive studies as research designs [60].

Use of Artificial Intelligence

AI or AI-assisted tools were not used in drafting any aspect of this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to sincerely thank the Nursing students, who so generously gave their time to participate in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Torres Escobar, G.A. Medición de la satisfacción estudiantil en universitarios desde el modelo SERVQUAL. RHS-Rev. Humanismo Soc. 2023, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Amaro-López, L.; Hernández-González, P.L.; Hernández-Blas, A.; Hernández-Arzola, L.I. La simulación clínica en la adquisición de conocimientos en estudiantes de la Licenciatura de Enfermería. Enfermería Univ. 2019, 16, 402–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Costa, R.R.O.; Medeiros, S.M.; Martins, J.C.A.; Coutinho, V.R.D.; Araújo, M.S. Eficacia de la simulación en la enseñanza de inmunización en la enfermería: Ensayo clínico aleatorio. Rev. Lat.-Am. Enferm. 2020, 28, e3305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee, S.E.; Repsha, C.; Seo, W.J.; Lee, S.H.; Dahinten, V.S. Room of horrors simulation in healthcare education: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2023, 126, 105824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Martínez-Arce, A.; Rodríguez-Almagro, J.; Vélez-Vélez, E.; Rodríguez-Gómez, P.; Tovar-Reinoso, A.; Hernández-Martínez, A. Validation of a short version of the high fidelity simulation satisfaction scale in nursing students. BMC Nurs. 2023, 22, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ramamurthy, R.; Chitra, F.; Durairaj, K. Traditional teaching method versus simulation-based teaching method in the prevention of medication errors among nursing students. Eur. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2024, 22, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Corvetto, M.; Pía Bravo, M.; Montaña, R.; Utili, F.; Escudero, E.; Boza, C.; Varas, J.; Dagnino, J. Simulación en educación médica: Una sinopsis. Rev. Médica Chile 2013, 141, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lindsey, P.L.; Jenkins, S. Nursing students’ clinical judgement regarding rapid response: The influence of a clinical simulation education intervention. Nursing forum. Wiley Period. 2013, 48, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sánchez Maldonado, H.A.; Gallardo Casas, C.Á.; Pérez Elizondo, E. Satisfacción de la simulación clínica como herramienta pedagógica para el aprendizaje en estudiantes de pregrado en Enfermería. Rev. Med. Investig. Univ. Autónoma Estado México 2022, 10, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Okuda, Y.; Bryson, E.O.; DeMaria, S.; Jacobson, L.; Quinones, J.; Shen, B.; Levine, A.I. The utility of simulation in medical education: What is the Evidence? Mt. Sinai J. Med. 2009, 76, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carrero-Planells, A.; Pol-Castañeda, S.; Alamillos-Guardiola, M.C.; Prieto-Alomar, A.; Tomás-Sánchez, M.; Moreno-Mulet, C. Students and teachers’ satisfaction and perspectives on high-fidelity simulation for learning fundamental nursing procedures: A mixed-method study. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 104, 104981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gastón, M.B. Simulación clínica y la pandemia por COVID-19. ¿De dónde venimos? ¿Hacia dónde queremos ir? An. Sist. Sanit. Navar. 2020, 43, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Casal Angulo, M.C.; Fernández-Garrido, J.J.; Ballestar-Tarín, M.L. La Simulación Como Metodol. Para El Aprendiz. De Habilidades No Técnicas En Enfermería. 2016. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71059825.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  14. Maran, N.J.; Glavin, R.J. Low-to high-fidelity simulation—A continuum of medical education? Med. Educ. 2003, 37, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Palés Argullós, J.L.; Gomar Sancho, C. El uso de las simulaciones en educación médica. Educ. Knowl. Soc. 2010, 11, 147–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alconero-Camarero, A.R.; Sarabia-Cobo, C.M.; González-Gómez, S.; Ibáñez-Rementería, I.; Alvarez-García, M.P. Estudio descriptivo de la satisfacción de los estudiantes del Grado en Enfermería en las prácticas de simulación clínica de alta fidelidad. Enfermería Clínica 2020, 30, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fenzi, G.; Reuben, A.D.; Díaz Agea, J.L.; Hernández Ruipérez, T.; Leal Costa, C. Self-learning methodology in simulated enviroments (MAES©) utilized in hospital settings. Action-research in an Emergency Department in the United Kingdom. Int. Emerg. Nurs. 2022, 61, 101128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yun, J.; Lee, Y.J.; Kang, K.; Park, J. Effectiveness of SBAR-based simulation programs for nursing students: A systematic review. BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. López Sánchez, M.; Ramos López, L.; Pato López, O.; López Álvarez, S. La simulación clínica como herramienta de aprendizaje. Asoc. Española Cirugía Mayor Ambulatoria 2013, 18, 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cura, Ş.Ü.; Kocatepe, V.; Yıldırım, D.; Küçükakgün, H.; Atay, S.; Ünver, V. Examining knowledge, skill, stress, satisfaction and self-confidence levels of nursing students in three different simulation modalities. Asian Nurs. Res. 2020, 14, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lubbers, J.; Rossman, C. Satisfaction and self-confidence with nursing clinical simulation: Novice learners, medium-fidelity, and community settings. Nurse Educ. Today 2017, 48, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Avraham, R.; Shor, V.; Kimhi, E. The influence of simulated medication administration learning on the clinical performance of nursing students: A comparative quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 103, 104947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ozdemir, N.G.; Kaya, H. The effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation methods to gain Foley catheterization knowledge, skills, satisfaction and self-confidence among novice nursing students: A randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ. Today 2023, 130, 105952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Chagas Rosa, M.E.; Vieira Pereira-Ávila, F.M.; Bezerra Góes, F.G.; Vieira Pereira-Ávila, N.M.; Milanês Sousa, L.R.; Lemos Goulart, M.C. Positive and negative aspects of clinical simulation in nursing teaching. Esc Anna Nery 2020, 24, e20190353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martínez López, F. La Simulación Clínica Como Herramienta de Aprendizaje en Estudiantes de Medicina. 2023. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10803/689783 (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  26. Álvarez Botello, J.; Chaparro Salinas, E.M.; Reyes Pérez, D.E. Estudio de la satisfacción de los estudiantes con los servicios educativos brindados por las instituciones de educación superior del Valle de Toluca. Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Cambio Educ. 2014, 13, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hernández Ortiz, Y.A.; Mejías Acosta, A. Factores que determinan la satisfacción estudiantil en educación superior: Análisis de caso en una universidad colombiana. Ing. Soc. 2018, 13, 162–172. [Google Scholar]
  28. Vázquez Castillo, M. Adaptación de la Escala de Satisfacción en Simulación de Alta Fidelidad en Estudiantes de Enfermería. 2021. Available online: https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3545004 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  29. Jiménez González, A.; Terriquez Carrillo, B.; Robles Zepeda, F.J. Evaluación de la satisfacción académica de los estudiantes de la Universidad autónoma de Nayarit. Fuente 2011, 3, 46–56. [Google Scholar]
  30. Vermeulen, J.; Buyl, R.; D’haenens, F.; Swinnen, E.; Stas, L.; Gucciardo, L.; Fobelets, M. Midwifery students’ satisfaction with perinatal simulation-based training. Women Birth 2021, 34, 554–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, Y.L.; Au, M.L.; Tong, L.K.; Ng, W.I.; Wang, S.C. High-fidelity simulation in undergraduate nursing education: A meta-analysis. Nurse Educ. Today 2022, 111, 105291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Olaussen, C.; Heggdal, K.; Tvedt, C.R. Elements in scenario-based simulation associated with nursing students’ self-confidence and satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Nurs. Open 2019, 7, 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cabañero-Martinez, M.J.; García-Sanjuán, S.; Escribano, S.; Fernández-Alcántara, M.; Martínez-Riera, J.R.; Juliá-Sanchís, R. Mixed-method study on the satisfaction of a high-fidelity simulation program in a sample of nursing-degree students. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 100, 104858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alharbi, K.; Alharbi, M.F. Nursing Students’ Satisfaction and Self-Confidence Levels After Their Simulation Experience. SAGE Open Nurs. 2022, 8, 23779608221139080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ming Chow, K.; Ahmat, R.; Leung, A.W.Y.; Chan, C.W.H. Is high-fidelity simulation-based training in emergency nursing effective in enhancing clinical decision-making skills? A mixed methods study. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2023, 69, 103610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sánchez Rodríguez, J.R.; Calderón Calderón, M.S.; Vargas Díaz, A.A.; Espino Ruiz, D.A.; Castillo de Lemus, R.M.; González Williams, Y.M. Experiencia formativa de académicos en dos universidades latinas en diplomado de simulación clínica en enfermería. Available online: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-03192023000100023&lng=es&tlng=es (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  37. Orden CIN/2134/2008; De 3 de Julio, por la que se Establecen los Requisitos para la Verificación de los Títulos Universitarios Oficiales que Habiliten para el Ejercicio de la Profesión de Enfermero. Boletín Oficial del Estado 174: Spain; 2008. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/o/2008/07/03/cin2134 (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  38. Alconero-Camarero, A.R.; Gualdrón-Romero, A.; Sarabia-Cobo, C.M.; Martínez-Arce, A. Clinical simulation as a learning tool in undergraduate nursing: Validation of a questionnaire. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 39, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Alconero-Camarero, A.R.; Sarabia-Cobo, C.M.; Catalán-Piris, M.J.; González-Gómez, S.; González-López, J.R. Nursing Students’ Satisfaction: A Comparison between Medium- and High-Fidelity Simulation Training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arrogante, O.; González-Romero, G.M.; Carrión-García, L.; Polo, A. Reversible causes of cardiac arrest: Nursing competency acquisition and clinical simulation satisfaction in undergraduate nursing students. Int. Emerg. Nurs. 2021, 54, 100938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Arrogante, O.; González-Romero, G.M.; López-Torre, E.M.; Carrión-García, L.; Polo, A. Comparing formative and summative simulation-based assessment in undergraduate nursing students: Nursing competency acquisition and clinical simulation satisfaction. BMC Nurs. 2021, 20, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jiménez-Rodríguez, D.; Arrogante, O. Simulated Video Consultations as a Learning Tool in Undergraduate Nursing: Students’ Perceptions. Healthcare 2020, 8, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. University of Seville. Memoria de Verificación: Título Oficial de Graduado o Graduada en Enfermería por la Universidad de Sevilla; University of Seville: Sevilla, Spain, 2008; Available online: https://alojawebapps.us.es/fichape/Doc/MV/157_memverif.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  44. Cea D’Ancona, M.A. Metodología Cuantitativa. Estrategias y Técnicas de Investigación Social; Síntesis: La Habana, Cuba, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hernández-Sampieri, R.; Fernández-Collado, C.; Baptista-Lucio, P. Metodología de la Investigación, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Mexico City, México, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2013. Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  47. Baptista, R.C.N.; Paiva, L.A.R.; Gonçalves, R.F.L.; Oliveira, L.M.N.; Pereira, M.F.C.R.; Martins, J.C.A. Satisfaction and gains perceived by nursing students with medium and high-fidelity simulation: A randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 46, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moreno-Cámara, S.; da-Silva-Domingues, H.; Parra-Anguita, L.; Gutiérrez-Sánchez, B. Evaluating Satisfaction and Self-Confidence among Nursing Students in Clinical Simulation Learning. Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14, 1037–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Franco, D.M.; Vargas, J.L. Uso de la Simulación Clínica en Cuidado Intensivo como Estrategia Pedagógica para el Desarrollo de Habilidades Integrales en Estudiantes de Enfermería y Medicina. 2022. Available online: https://repository.javeriana.edu.co/handle/10554/60138 (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  50. Vargas-Ovalle, J.L.; Franco-Sánchez, D.M. Simulación clínica en cuidado intensivo como herramienta para el desarrollo de habilidades no técnicas en profesionales de la salud. Simulación Clín. 2023, 5, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Walker, S.; Rossi, D.; Anastasi, J.; Gray-Ganter, G.; Tennent, R. Indicators of undergraduate nursing students’ satisfaction with their learning journey: An integrative review. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 43, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Astudillo-Araya, Á.; López-Espinoza, M.Á.; Cádiz-Medina, V.; Fierro-Palma, J.; Figueroa-Lara, A.; Vilches-Parra, N. Validación de la encuesta de calidad y satisfacción de simulación clínica en estudiantes de enfermería. Cienc. Enfermería 2017, 23, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Horsley, T.L.; Bensfield, L.A.; Sojka, S.; Schmitt, A. Multiple-Patient Simulations: Guidelines and Examples. Nurse Educ. 2014, 39, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. INACSL Standards Committee. Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice TM Prebriefing: Preparation and Briefing. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2021, 58, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ruiz Vera, P.I.; Martini, J.G. Satisfacción de estudiantes de enfermería con práctica de simulación clínica en escenarios de alta fidelidad. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2020, 29, e20190348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bates, T.A. Assessing the Impact of Simulation Role on Anxiety and Perceived Outcomes in Undergraduate Nursing Students. Available online: https://kb.gcsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=dnp (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  57. Boostel, R.; Felix, J.V.C.; Pedrolo, E.; Vayego, S.A.; Mantovani, M.F. Estresse do estudante de enfermagem na simulação clínica: Ensaio clínico randomizado. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2018, 71, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Blanié, A.; Gorse, S.; Roulleau, P.; Figueiredo, S.; Benhamou, D. Impact of learners’ role (active participant-observer or observer only) on learning outcomes during high-fidelity simulation sessions in anaesthesia: A single center, prospective and randomised study. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 2018, 37, 417–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Matiz Camacho, H. La práctica de la simulación clínica en las ciencias de la salud. Rev. Colomb. Cardiol. 2011, 18, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Manterola, C.; Otzen, T. Checklist for reporting results using observational descriptive studies as research designs. The MInCirs initiative. Int. J. Morphol. 2017, 35, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nursrep 14 00231 g001
Figure 1. Participant flowchart. Source: the authors.
Figure 1. Participant flowchart. Source: the authors.
Nursrep 14 00231 g001
Table 1. Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation.
Table 1. Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation.
FactorsConceptual DefinitionItems
1. Simulation utilitySuitability of CS as a tool that eases learning.7: Simulation is useful to assess the clinical status of a patient.
10: Simulation will improve my ability to provide care to my patients.
12: Simulation will improve communication and the ability to work with the team.
15: Simulation allows us to plan patient’s care effectively.
16: Simulation will improve my technical skills.
17: Simulation will reinforce my critical thinking and decision-making.
18: Simulation will help me assess the patient’s condition.
19: This experience will help me prioritize care.
21: Simulation improves communication with the team.
22: It improves communication with the family.
23: It improves communication with the patient.
26: Simulation will improve my clinical competence.
31: Simulation will allow me to learn from the mistakes I made.
2. Characteristics of cases and applicationsSuitability of the clinical settings developed in relation to the students’ own characteristics.2: Are the simulation objectives clear?
5: The degree of difficulty of the cases is adequate to my knowledge.
6: I felt comfortable and respected during the sessions.
8: Simulation practice lets you learn how to avoid making mistakes.
3. CommunicationCommunication tasks that are carried out while developing CS sessions.27: The teacher always gives constructive feedback after each simulation session.
28: Debriefing at the end of the session allows reflecting on the cases.
29: Debriefing at the end of the session helps to correct mistakes.
4. Self-reflection on performanceCS application in clinical practices.9: Simulation will help me set priorities for action in clinical situations.
11: Simulation will make me think about my next clinical practice.
32: Simulation is useful in the practice.
5. self-confidenceRepercussion level of the CS sessions on the students’ self-confidence.20: Simulation promotes self-confidence.
24: Simulation will improve my self-confidence.
33: I will meet my learning expectations with these sessions.
6. Relation between theory and practiceThe ability of CS to act as a bridge between theoretical and practical knowledge.3: Do the cases recreate real situations?
4: Is timing for each simulation case adequate?
14: Simulation is helpful as it relates theory with practice.
7. Facilities and equipmentCS and the students’ ability to create an immersive clinical setting.1: Do you think that the simulation classrooms where the cases are developed are real?
25: Yom can “lose your cool” with some cases during the simulation sessions.
30: I already know the theoretical part of the cases.
8. Negative aspects of simulationCharacteristics of CS that might suppose negative repercussions.13: Simulation will make me more worried about the competences that a graduated nurse should have.
Source: Alconero-Camarero et al. [16,38,39].
Table 2. Mean age, standard deviation, age range and percentage of women per center.
Table 2. Mean age, standard deviation, age range and percentage of women per center.
CentresMean Age (Standard Deviation)Age Range% of Women (N)
Centre A22.75 (4.84)19–4092.31 (60)
Centre B21.74 (2.57)20–3389.13 (41)
Centre C21.94 (1.48)20–2588.57 (62)
Source: the authors.
Table 3. Results according to the Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation items in the entire sample and in the each of the centres.
Table 3. Results according to the Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation items in the entire sample and in the each of the centres.
ItemsN (%)
Entire SampleCentre ACentre BCentre C
S. 1 y 2S. 3S. 4 y 5 X ¯ (SD)S. 1 y 2S. 3S. 4 y 5S. 1 y 2S. 3S. 4 y 5S. 1 y 2S. 3S. 4 y 5
141 (22.78)19 (10.56)120 (66.67)3.57 (±0.98)10 (15.38)2 (3.308)53 (81.54)18 (40)7 (15.56)20 (44.44)13 (18.57)10 (14.29)47 (67.15)
24 (2.22)19 (10.56)157 (87.22)4.1 (±0.66)3 (4.61)9 (13.85)53 (81.54)1 (2.22)3 (6.66)41 (91.11)0 (0)7 (10)63 (90)
320 (11.17)25 (13.89)134 (74.86)3.94 (±0.99)7 (10.77)5 (7.69)53 (81.54)9 (20)7 (15.56)29 (64.45)4 (5.71)12 (17.14)53 (75.71)
4107 (60.11)21 (11.67)50 (28.09)2.62 (±1.1)38 (58.46)5 (7.69)21 (32.31)21 (46.66)12 (26.67)11 (24.44)44 (62.86)4 (5.71)22 (31.43)
510 (5.62)33 (18.33)135 (75.84)3.89 (±0.79)3 (4.61)11 (16.92)51 (58.46)2 (4.44)6 (13.33)36 (80)5 (7.14)16 (22.86)49 (70)
60 (0)12 (6.67)168 (93.33)4.42 (±0.61)0 (0)2 (3.08)63 (96.92)0 (0)5 (11.11)40 (88.89)0 (0)5 (7.14)65 (92.86)
723 (12.78)22 (12.22)135 (75)3.92 (±1.04)8 (12.31)9 (13.85)48 (73.85)8 (17.77)7 (15.56)30 (66.67)7 (10)5 (7.14)58 (82.86)
842 (23.33)36 (20)102 (56.67)3.45 (±1.1)19 (29.23)10 (15.38)36 (55.39)8 (17.78)10 (22.22)27 (60)14 (20)16 (22.86)40 (57.14)
911 (6.11)23 (12.78)146 (81.11)4.04 (±0.87)8 (12.3)8 (12.31)49 (75.38)2 (4.44)8 (17.78)35 (77.78)1 (1.43)6 (8.57)63 (90)
1013 (7.22)21 (11.67)146 (81.11)4.04 (±0.9)7 (10.76)9 (13.85)49 (75.38)2 (4.44)8 (17.78)35 (77.78)4 (5.71)4 (5.71)62 (88.57)
1111 (6.11)20 (11.11)149 (82.78)4.04 (±0.84)5 (7.69)5 (7.69)55 (84.61)1 (2.22)5 (11.11)39 (86.67)5 (7.14)10 (14.29)55 (78.57)
1217 (9.44)28 (15.56)135 (75)3.84 (±0.87)10 (15.39)7 (10.77)48 (73.84)6 (13.33)11 (24.44)28 (62.23)1 (1.43)9 (12.86)60 (85.71)
1316 (8.94)27 (1)136 (75.98)3.99 (±0.96)8 (12.31)17 (26.15)39 (60)4 (8.88)5 (11.11)36 (80)4 (5.71)4 (5.71)62 (88.57)
141 (0.56)9 (5)168 (94.38)4.4 (±0.61)0 (0)4 (6.15)61 (93.85)0 (0)4 (8.89)41 (91.11)1 (1.43)1 (1.43)66 (94.29)
1517 (9.6)40 (22.22)120 (67.8)3.74 (±0.86)6 (9.23)16 (24.62)40 (61.53)6 (13.33)8 (17.78)31 (68.89)5 (7.14)16 (22.86)49 (70)
1620 (11.17)28 (15.56)131 (73.18)3.9 (±0.96)9 (13.85)7 (10.77)48 (73.84)5 (11.11)10 (22.22)30 (66.67)6 (8.57)11 (15.71)53 (75.71)
1711 (6.21)28 (15.56)138 (77.97)3.93 (±0.81)8 (12.31)14 (21.54)41 (63.08)2 (4.44)4 (8.89)39 (86.67)1 (1.43)9 (12.86)59 (84.28)
1829 (16.2)39 (21.6)111 (62.01)3.63 (±0.97)13 (20)16 (24.62)35 (53.85)7 (15.56)10 (22.22)28 (62.22)8 (11.43)13 (18.57)49 (70)
1914 (7.82)34 (18.89)131 (73.18)3.87 (±0.85)8 (12.31)16 (24.62)40 (61.54)4 (8.89)6 (13.33)35 (77.78)2 (2.86)11 (15.71)57 (81.69)
2018 (10.06)37 (20.56)124 (69.27)3.84 (±0.95)7 (10.77)13 (20)44 (67.69)9 (20)10 (22.22)26 (57.77)2 (2.86)14 (20)54 (77.15)
2121 (11.67)40 (22.22)119 (66.11)3.78 (±0.99)12 (18.46)13 (20)40 (61.54)5 (11.11)13 (28.89)27 (60)3 (4.29)14 (20)53 (75.71)
2266 (36.67)67 (37.22)47 (26.11)2.82 (±1.09)21 (32.31)28 (43.08)16 (24.61)16 (35.55)18 (40)11 (24.44)28 (40)21 (30)21 (30)
2352 (29.71)50 (27.78)73 (41.71)3.13 (±1.07)19 (29.23)24 (36.92)21 (32.31)14 (31.1)12 (26.67)17 (37.78)19 (27.14)13 (18.57)36 (51.43)
2423 (13.07)35 (19.44)118 (67.05)3.77 (±1)11 (16.93)11 (16.92)43 (66.16)8 (17.78)10 (22.22)25 (55.56)4 (5.71)14 (20)50 (71.43)
2526 (14.77)26 (14.44)124 (70.45)3.77 (±1.02)11 (16.93)16 (24.62)38 (58.46)10 (22.22)6 (13.33)27 (60)5 (7.14)4 (5.71)59 (84.28)
269 (5.14)18 (10)148 (84.57)4.01 (±0.72)4 (6.15)8 (12.31)53 (81.54)4 (8.89)3 (6.66)35 (77.78)1 (1.43)7 (10)60 (85.71)
2718 (10.23)26 (14.44)132 (75)3.83 (±0.9)5 (7.69)13 (20)47 (72.31)9 (20)9 (20)25 (55.56)4 (5.71)4 (5.71)60 (85.71)
286 (3.41)55 (30.56)115 (65.34)3.74 (±0.71)2 (3.08)18 (27.69)45 (69.23)3 (6.66)18 (40)22 (48.89)1 (1.43)19 (27.14)48 (68.57)
298 (4.57)40 (22.22)127 (72.57)3.86 (±0.76)5 (7.69)8 (12.31)52 (80)2 (4.44)16 (35.56)25 (55.56)1 (1.43)16 (22.86)50 (71.43)
3018 (10.23)28 (15.56)130 (73.86)3.83 (±0.91)3 (4.61)12 (18.46)50 (76.92)5 (11.11)5 (11.11)33 (73.33)10 (14.29)11 (15.71)47 (67.14)
314 (2.29)8 (4.44)163 (93.14)4.21 (±0.66)3 (4.62)4 (6.15)58 (89.23)0 (0)2 (4.44)41 (91.11)1 (1.43)2 (2.86)64 (91.43)
328 (4.57)14 (7.78)153 (87.43)4.18 (±0.83)4 (6.16)9 (13.85)52 (80)3 (6.67)2 (4.44)37 (82.22)1 (1.43)3 (4.29)64 (91.43)
3318 (10.23)28 (15.56)130 (73.86)3.88 (±0.93)7 (10.77)11 (16.92)47 (72.31)10 (22.22)7 (15.56)26 (57.78)1 (1.43)10 (14.29)57 (81.43)
S. 1 y 2: Scores of “Totally disagree/Disagree”; S. 3: Score of “Indifferent”; S. 4 y 5: Scores of “Agree/Totally agree”. Source: The Authors.
Table 4. Mean, standard deviation, medians and interquartile range of the Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation factors in each of the centres.
Table 4. Mean, standard deviation, medians and interquartile range of the Scale with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation factors in each of the centres.
FactorsArithmetic Mean ± SD [Median/Interquartile Range] of the Items
Centre ACentre BCentre C
Factor 1. Simulation utility3.57 ± 0.71 [4.0/1.0]3.62 ± 0.59 [4.0/1.0]3.9 ± 0.55 [4.0/1.0]
Factor 2. Characteristics of cases and applications3.88 ± 0.61 [4.0/1.0]3.9 ± 0.47 [4.0/0.0]4.06 ± 0.55 [4.0/1.0]
Factor 3. Communication3.79 ± 0.57 [4.0/1.0]3.39 ± 1.05 [4.0/1.0]3.86 ± 0.91 [4.0/1.0]
Factor 4. Self-reflection on performance3.97 ± 0.75 [4.0/1.0]3.93 ± 0.70 [4.0/1.0]4.2 ± 0.65 [4.0/1.0]
Factor 5. Increased self-confidence3.76 ± 0.85 [4.0/2.0]3.41 ± 0.84 [4.0/1.0]4 ± 0.85 [4.0/1.0]
Factor 6. Relation between theory and practise3.6 ± 0.69 [4.0/2.0]3.53 ± 0.68 [4.0/1.0]3.7 ± 0.60 [4.0/1.0]
Factor 7. Facilities and equipment3.79 ± 0.66 [4.0/1.0]3.35 ± 0.75 [4.0/2.0]3.75 ± 0.72 [4.0/1.0]
Factor 8. Negative aspects of simulation3.65 ± 1.06 [4.0/1.0]3.87 ± 0.86 [4.0/0.0]4.34 ± 0.83 [4.5/1.0]
Source: the authors.
Table 5. Kruskal–Wallis test of the factors according to centre.
Table 5. Kruskal–Wallis test of the factors according to centre.
FactorsCentreAverage RangeStatisticalpContrastSig.Difference
1. Simulation utilityA80.4469.05820.0107A–B-−1.842
B82.288A–C*−24.668
C105.114B–C-−22.825
2. Characteristics of cases and applicationsA85.23.53480.1707A–B-1.111
B84.088A–C-−14.342
C99.542B–C-−15.454
3. CommunicationA91.1308.47020.0144A–B-18.319
B72.811A–C-−10.154
C101.286B–C*−28.474
4. Self-reflection on performanceA84.0927.05770.0293A–B-3.847
B80.244A–C-−18.950
C103.043B–C-−22.798
5. Self-confidenceA89.93813.73260.0010A–B-21.371
B68.566A–C-−15.183
C105.121B–C*−36.554
6. Relation between theory and practiseA88.3151.26910.5301A–B-2.815
B85.5A–C-−7.427
C95.742B–C-−10.242
7. Facilities and equipmentA97.85312.14610.0023A–B*30.476
B67.377A–C-−0.681
C98.535B–C*−31.157
8. Negative aspects of simulationA75.59317.81980.0001A–B-−5.339
B80.933A–C*−33.406
C109.0B–C*−28.066
-: No statistical significance; *: statistical significance; Source: the authors.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiménez-Álvarez, J.A.; Guerra-Martín, M.D.; Borrallo-Riego, Á. Nursing Students’ Satisfaction with Clinical Simulation: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study. Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14, 3178-3190. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040231

AMA Style

Jiménez-Álvarez JA, Guerra-Martín MD, Borrallo-Riego Á. Nursing Students’ Satisfaction with Clinical Simulation: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study. Nursing Reports. 2024; 14(4):3178-3190. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiménez-Álvarez, Juan Antonio, María Dolores Guerra-Martín, and Álvaro Borrallo-Riego. 2024. "Nursing Students’ Satisfaction with Clinical Simulation: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study" Nursing Reports 14, no. 4: 3178-3190. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040231

APA Style

Jiménez-Álvarez, J. A., Guerra-Martín, M. D., & Borrallo-Riego, Á. (2024). Nursing Students’ Satisfaction with Clinical Simulation: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study. Nursing Reports, 14(4), 3178-3190. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040231

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop