Procedural Skill. LearningNCT04992091
Effects of Constructive Debriefing on Procedural Skills and Satisfaction of Nursing Students in Low Fidelity Context. A Randomized Controlled Trial.
A study testing constructive debriefing in people with Procedural Skill. Learning, run by Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University at 1 site in Pakistan.
Trial summary
Purposes: This study was set out to measure the effectiveness of constructive debriefing on procedural skills and satisfaction of nursing students in the low-fidelity context in comparison to traditional debriefing. Method: The randomized controlled (Parallel double blinded) trial design was used. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 27 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Procedural Skill. Learning
- What is being tested?
- constructive debriefing
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 34 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePakistan
- Study dates
- 5 Aug 2019to 28 May 2020
- 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 27 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Students who were enrolled in the Adult Health Nursing (AHN) course were included in the study
Who cannot join
- Studentsnts who were repeating the course and were absent for two or more days during skills demonstration and signing off were excluded
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Constructive Debriefing
Purposes: This study was set out to measure the effectiveness of constructive debriefing on procedural skills and satisfaction of nursing students in the low-fidelity context in comparison to traditional debriefing.
Method: The randomized controlled (Parallel double blinded) trial design was used.
Read more
Participant: Out of 51 approached, 34 students were selected from the list of participants by a data collector using simple random sampling technique. Following, block randomization was applied using Microsoft Excel to create two equivalent (n=17) groups i.e. experimental and non-experimental.
Setting: The study was conducted in private college of nursing Islamabad Pakistan Intervention: The experimental group received constructive debriefing and non-experimental group received the traditional debriefing. The data were collected using suctioning, sterile dressing skills checklist, and debriefing reflection subscale of Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale.
- Conditions
- Procedural Skill. Learning
- Being tested
- constructive debriefing
- Keywords
- Debriefing, Procedural skills, Satisfaction, Reflection, Critical thinking
- Medical subject headings
- Personal Satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
constructive debriefingOther
Also called traditional debrieifng
Constructive debriefing was applied to an interventional group Traditional debriefing was applied on noninterventional group
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| CONSTRUCTIVE DEBRIEFING | Experimental | interventional group Receives: Other: constructive debriefing |
| traditional debriefing | No intervention | noninterventional group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
learning scores
learning scores of participant
Measured: 8months
Secondary outcomes (1)
satisfaction level
measure satisfaction level of participant
Measured: 8months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Aug 2021
- Study start5 Aug 2019
- Primary completion1 Jan 2020
- Study completion28 May 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Procedural Skill. LearningStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 34 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Bushra Sultan, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04992091
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB# 264-754-2019
- Status last verified
- Jul 2021
- First submitted
- 28 Jul 2021
- Last updated
- 5 Aug 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Aug 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Constructive Debriefing
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04992091
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB# 264-754-2019
- Conditions
- Procedural Skill. Learning
- Keywords
- Debriefing, Procedural skills, Satisfaction, Reflection, Critical thinking
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 34 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Shifa Tameer-e-Millat UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Aug 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jan 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 28 May 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Aug 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.
Purposes: This study was set out to measure the effectiveness of constructive debriefing on procedural skills and satisfaction of nursing students in the low-fidelity context in comparison to traditional debriefing.
Method: The randomized controlled (Parallel double blinded) trial design was used.
Participant: Out of 51 approached, 34 students were selected from the list of participants by a data collector using simple random sampling technique. Following, block randomization was applied using Microsoft Excel to create two equivalent (n=17) groups i.e. experimental and non-experimental.
Setting: The study was conducted in private college of nursing Islamabad Pakistan Intervention: The experimental group received constructive debriefing and non-experimental group received the traditional debriefing. The data were collected using suctioning, sterile dressing skills checklist, and debriefing reflection subscale of Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| CONSTRUCTIVE DEBRIEFING | Experimental | Other: constructive debriefinginterventional group |
| traditional debriefing | No intervention | –noninterventional group |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 27 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Students who were enrolled in the Adult Health Nursing (AHN) course were included in the study
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Studentsnts who were repeating the course and were absent for two or more days during skills demonstration and signing off were excluded
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 |
|---|---|---|
| constructive debriefingAlso: traditional debrieifngConstructive debriefing was applied to an interventional group Traditional debriefing was applied on noninterventional group | Other | CONSTRUCTIVE DEBRIEFING |
Primary outcome
learning scores
Time frame: 8months
learning scores of participant
1 secondary outcome
satisfaction level
Time frame: 8months
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 5 Aug 2021.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
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 constructive debriefing in people with Procedural Skill. Learning, run by Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University at 1 site in Pakistan.
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 1 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 5 Aug 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 Pakistan. 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?
learning scores (time frame: 8months). 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 5 Aug 2021.