Educational ProblemsEDUNCT04977921
Lab Skills Nursing Education Into Effective Clinical Practice During COVID-19: Elsevier Clinical Skill Platform
A study testing lab session in people with Educational Problems, run by Beni-Suef University at 1 site in Saudi Arabia.
Trial summary
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of utilizing an Elsevier clinical skill platform in clinical nursing education. 1.2. Research hypotheses 1. Nursing students who assign for the critical care clinical course modules using Elsevier clinical skill platform obtain a higher score in the OSCE than who… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 22 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Educational Problems
- What is being tested?
- lab session
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSaudi Arabia
- Study dates
- 17 Jan 2021to 30 May 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 22 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Must be passed all prerequisite nursing courses
Who cannot join
- Unwilling to participate
- Request to use traditional lab session
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: An Authentic Solution to Translate Lab Skills Nursing Education Into Effective Clinical Practice During COVID-19: Elsevier Clinical Skill Platform
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of utilizing an Elsevier clinical skill platform in clinical nursing education.
1.2. Research hypotheses
- Nursing students who assign for the critical care clinical course modules using Elsevier clinical skill platform obtain a higher score in the OSCE than who receive clinical Lab session on campus.
- Nursing students who utilize an Elsevier clinical skill are more satisfied in the clinical education journey.
Read the detailed description
A quasi-experimental, two groups, pre-posttest study was carried out in Nursing college, King Khalid University, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia.
2.2 Instruments
- Pre-posttest per skill was conducted for both group the Elsevier clinical skill group (ECS Group) and traditional Clinical Lab Session group (CLS Group), to assess the students' knowledge level before and after receiving each scheduled Lab Module.
- Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE): The summative OSCE included practical stations with an associated written paper for each skill examined. For the practical station, Students must pass the practical station (100%), as well as the relevant written station (70%) to achieve a pass in that scope of practice skill according to Exam policy \& Procedure.
- Students' perception of Usability and Learning of Elsevier Clinical Skill: included 8 questions developed by Rowe et al, 2017 categorized into two main themes: 1st theme is relevant to the Usability of the platform (4 items) and 2nd theme reflected the Learning enhancement while using the platform (4 items). Each item was scored on a three-point Likert scale as follows: Strongly agree or agree (3), Neither agree nor disagree (2) and Strongly disagree or disagree (1). The overall perceptions of students with both online and traditional lab experiences included and score ranged between (1-3) as 1= Much better than or better than, 2= About the same as 2, Much worse than or not as good as 3
2.3 Participants: A convenience sample of all students enrolled in the critical care nursing course (n=52) were divided into two groups and random selection was implemented by the registration office following the inclusion criteria for all students who were enrolled first time receive critical care nursing course. Therefore, two students were withdrawn at the beginning of the course. The first group represented the control group the Clinical Lab session (25 students), whilst the second group represented the intervention group the Elsevier clinical skill (25 students).
- Conditions
- Educational Problems
- Being tested
- lab session
- Keywords
- Clinical lab session, Elsiever clinical skill, traditional lab session, students satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
lab sessionOther
assign students to clinical modules for study the clinical lab scope of practice
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Elsiever clinical skill platform | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: lab session |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Improve student's performance per clinical lab session
- Pre-posttest per skill was conducted for both group the Elsevier clinical skill group (ECS Group) and traditional Clinical Lab Session group (CLS Group), to assess the students' knowledge level before and after receiving each scheduled Lab Module.
Measured: 13 lab session-13 weeks
evaluate effectiveness of teaching pedagogy
- Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE): The summative OSCE included practical stations with an associated written paper for each skill examined. For the practical station, Students must pass the practical station (100%), as well as the relevant written station (70%) to achieve a pass in that scope of practice skill according to Exam policy \& Procedure.
Measured: Week 14
Secondary outcomes (1)
assess students' perception of Usability and Learning of Elsevier Clinical Skill:
Included 8 questions 1st theme is relevant to the Usability of the platform (4 items) and 2nd theme reflected the Learning enhancement while using the platform (4 items). Each item was scored on a three-point Likert scale as follows: Strongly agree or agree (3), Neither agree nor disagree (2) and strongly disagree or disagree (1). The overall perceptions of students with both online and traditional lab experiences included and score ranged between (1-3) as 1= Much better than or better than, 2= About the same as 2, Much worse than or not as good as 3
Measured: up to 15 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jul 2021
- Study start17 Jan 2021
- Primary completion15 May 2021
- Study completion30 May 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Educational ProblemsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Beni-Suef UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- A quasi-experimental, two groups, pre-posttest study was carried out in Nursing college, King Khalid University, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Beni-Suef University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Magda Bayoumi, Beni-Suef University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04977921
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- KKU2341751442
- Acronym
- EDU
- Status last verified
- Jul 2021
- First submitted
- 17 Jul 2021
- Last updated
- 27 Jul 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: data analysis completed July writing paper on August publish paper on September
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Jul 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Authentic Solution to Translate Lab Skills Nursing Education Into Effective Clinical Practice During COVID-19: Elsevier Clinical Skill Platform
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04977921
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EDU / KKU2341751442
- Conditions
- Educational Problems
- Keywords
- Clinical lab session, Elsiever clinical skill, traditional lab session, students satisfaction
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Beni-Suef UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 17 Jan 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 May 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 May 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Jul 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of utilizing an Elsevier clinical skill platform in clinical nursing education.
1.2. Research hypotheses
- Nursing students who assign for the critical care clinical course modules using Elsevier clinical skill platform obtain a higher score in the OSCE than who receive clinical Lab session on campus.
- Nursing students who utilize an Elsevier clinical skill are more satisfied in the clinical education journey.
Detailed description
A quasi-experimental, two groups, pre-posttest study was carried out in Nursing college, King Khalid University, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia.
2.2 Instruments
- Pre-posttest per skill was conducted for both group the Elsevier clinical skill group (ECS Group) and traditional Clinical Lab Session group (CLS Group), to assess the students' knowledge level before and after receiving each scheduled Lab Module.
- Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE): The summative OSCE included practical stations with an associated written paper for each skill examined. For the practical station, Students must pass the practical station (100%), as well as the relevant written station (70%) to achieve a pass in that scope of practice skill according to Exam policy \& Procedure.
- Students' perception of Usability and Learning of Elsevier Clinical Skill: included 8 questions developed by Rowe et al, 2017 categorized into two main themes: 1st theme is relevant to the Usability of the platform (4 items) and 2nd theme reflected the Learning enhancement while using the platform (4 items). Each item was scored on a three-point Likert scale as follows: Strongly agree or agree (3), Neither agree nor disagree (2) and Strongly disagree or disagree (1). The overall perceptions of students with both online and traditional lab experiences included and score ranged between (1-3) as 1= Much better than or better than, 2= About the same as 2, Much worse than or not as good as 3
2.3 Participants: A convenience sample of all students enrolled in the critical care nursing course (n=52) were divided into two groups and random selection was implemented by the registration office following the inclusion criteria for all students who were enrolled first time receive critical care nursing course. Therefore, two students were withdrawn at the beginning of the course. The first group represented the control group the Clinical Lab session (25 students), whilst the second group represented the intervention group the Elsevier clinical skill (25 students).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- A quasi-experimental, two groups, pre-posttest study was carried out in Nursing college, King Khalid University, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Elsiever clinical skill platform | Experimental | Other: lab session |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 22 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Must be passed all prerequisite nursing courses
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Unwilling to participate
- Request to use traditional lab session
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| lab sessionassign students to clinical modules for study the clinical lab scope of practice | Other | Elsiever clinical skill platform |
Primary outcome
Improve student's performance per clinical lab session
Time frame: 13 lab session-13 weeks
1. Pre-posttest per skill was conducted for both group the Elsevier clinical skill group (ECS Group) and traditional Clinical Lab Session group (CLS Group), to assess the students' knowledge level before and after receiving each scheduled Lab Module.
evaluate effectiveness of teaching pedagogy
Time frame: Week 14
2. Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE): The summative OSCE included practical stations with an associated written paper for each skill examined. For the practical station, Students must pass the practical station (100%), as well as the relevant written station (70%) to achieve a pass in that scope of practice skill according to Exam policy \& Procedure.
1 secondary outcome
assess students' perception of Usability and Learning of Elsevier Clinical Skill:
Time frame: up to 15 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Jul 2021.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. data analysis completed July writing paper on August publish paper on September
Related trials for Educational Problems
Not yet recruiting
Standardized Educational Videos of Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgeries
Educational Problems, Surgery
Active, not recruiting
Impact of Surgical Coaching on Resident ObGyn Laparoscopic Skills
Educational Problems
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of a Couple-based Psycho-socio-educational Intervention Using WeChat/WhatsApp on Dyadic Psychological and Sleep Outcomes
Sleep Problems, Psychological
Active, not recruiting
Fostering Healthy Futures for Teens: An RCT
Child Abuse, Child Neglect
Recruiting
Health Equity and Rural Education (HERE!) Clinical Trial
Behavioral Symptoms, Community Health Workers
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing lab session in people with Educational Problems, run by Beni-Suef University at 1 site in Saudi Arabia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Jul 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Saudi Arabia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Improve student's performance per clinical lab session (time frame: 13 lab session-13 weeks). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Jul 2021.