BLS CompetenceNCT06624449
The Effect of Immediate Versus Delayed Debriefing on Basic Life Support Competence In Undergraduate Nursing Students.
A study testing Cold debriefing and Hot Debriefing in people with BLS Competence and Debriefing, run by University of Cincinnati at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to find out if immediate (hot) or delayed (cold) debriefing is better for undergraduate nursing students during Basic Life Support (BLS) training. The study aims to: Identify the effect of hot versus cold debriefing in BLS training for nursing students. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- BLS Competence, Debriefing
- What is being tested?
- Cold debriefing and Hot Debriefing
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 44 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 29 Aug 2023to 7 Mar 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Junior or senior nursing students (i.e., in their third or fourth year of the BSN degree).
Who cannot join
- Nursing students who are not junior or senior.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University Of Cincinnati College of Nursing
Cincinnati, Ohio, 45221
About this study
Official title: The Effect of Hot and Cold Debriefing on BLS Competence and Reflection In Undergraduate Nursing Students.
The goal of this clinical trial is to find out if immediate (hot) or delayed (cold) debriefing is better for undergraduate nursing students during Basic Life Support (BLS) training.
The study aims to:
- Identify the effect of hot versus cold debriefing in BLS training for nursing students.
- Identify which debriefing method students prefer.
Researchers will compare the two debriefing methods. Participants will:
- Be randomly assigned (by flipping a coin) to either hot or cold debriefing.
- Take part in a simulation about Basic Life Support.
Read the detailed description
This RCT aimed to identify the efficacy of cold versus hot debriefing in BLS training for undergraduate nursing students\' BLS competence and to assess the impact of hot and cold debriefing nursing students\' debriefing experience.
Specific Aims/Hypothesis Specific aim 1: Identify the efficacy of cold versus hot debriefing in BLS training for undergraduate nursing students\' BLS competence.
Hypothesis 1a: In both cold and hot debriefing groups, there is a significant difference in the BLS competence of undergraduate nursing students between pre-intervention and post-intervention.
Hypothesis 1b: Undergraduate nursing students who receive cold debriefing will show greater BLS competence than those who receive hot debriefing. Our approach to testing the aim is to conduct an experimental design study.
Specific aim 2: Assess the impact of hot and cold debriefing on undergraduate nursing students\' debriefing experience.
Hypothesis 2: Undergraduate nursing students who receive cold debriefing will show greater debriefing experience scores than those who receive hot debriefing.
- Conditions
- BLS Competence, Debriefing
- Being tested
- Cold debriefing, Hot Debriefing
- Keywords
- Debriefing, Simulation, Basic Life Support, Undergraduate Nursing Students
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cold debriefingBehavioural
Manipulation (experimental): The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group.
Hot DebriefingBehavioural
The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Cold Debriefing | Experimental | The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. Receives: Behavioral: Cold debriefing |
| Hot Debriefing | Other | The control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). Receives: Behavioral: Hot Debriefing |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Basic Life Support Competence
Competence level was measured via the American Heart Association (2020) Basic Life Support competency checklist, which is a dichotomous rating scale of 0 (not done/done incorrectly) and 1 (done correctly); there was a total of 15 points. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
Measured: Immediately after the intervention
Secondary outcomes (1)
Debriefing Experience Scale
The Debriefing Experience Scale (DES) (Reed, 2012) was developed to assess nursing students debriefing experience. It included 20 elements in total and was split into four subscales: (1) Analyzing Thoughts and Feelings; (2) Learning and Makin Connections; (3) Facilitator Skill in Conducting the Debriefing; and (4) Appropriate Facilitator Guidance (Reed, 2012). A Likert scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The minimum score is 20 and the maximum is 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
Measured: Immediately after the intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Oct 2024
- Study start29 Aug 2023
- Primary completion7 Mar 2024
- Study completion7 Mar 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for BLS CompetenceStudies 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
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Cincinnati
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Fahad Alanezi, University of Cincinnati
- Investigators
- Fahad Alanezi, PhD Candidate, MSc, BSN, Principal investigator, University of Cincinnati
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06624449
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2023-0423
- Status last verified
- Nov 2024
- First submitted
- 27 Sep 2024
- Last updated
- 29 Nov 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: All collected IPD, all IPD that underlie results in a publication
Publications
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Reed, S. J. (2012). Debriefing experience scale: Development of a tool to evaluate the student learning experience in debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(6), e211-e217.
Meguerdichian M, Bajaj K, Ivanhoe R, Lin Y, Sloma A, de Roche A, Altonen B, Bentley S, Cheng A, Walker K. Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022 Dec 12;7(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00236-x.
PubMed 36503623Ha EH. Effects of hot and cold debriefing in simulation with case-based learning. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2021 Feb 26:e12410. doi: 10.1111/jjns.12410. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 33634592Kessler DO, Cheng A, Mullan PC. Debriefing in the emergency department after clinical events: a practical guide. Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;65(6):690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.10.019. Epub 2014 Nov 15.
PubMed 25455910Couper K, Perkins GD. Debriefing after resuscitation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013 Jun;19(3):188-94. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32835f58aa.
PubMed 23426138
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Nov 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effect of Hot and Cold Debriefing on BLS Competence and Reflection In Undergraduate Nursing Students.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06624449
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2023-0423
- Conditions
- BLS Competence, Debriefing
- Keywords
- Debriefing, Simulation, Basic Life Support, Undergraduate Nursing Students
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of CincinnatiUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 29 Aug 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 7 Mar 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 7 Mar 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 29 Nov 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this clinical trial is to find out if immediate (hot) or delayed (cold) debriefing is better for undergraduate nursing students during Basic Life Support (BLS) training.
The study aims to:
- Identify the effect of hot versus cold debriefing in BLS training for nursing students.
- Identify which debriefing method students prefer.
Researchers will compare the two debriefing methods. Participants will:
- Be randomly assigned (by flipping a coin) to either hot or cold debriefing.
- Take part in a simulation about Basic Life Support.
Detailed description
This RCT aimed to identify the efficacy of cold versus hot debriefing in BLS training for undergraduate nursing students\' BLS competence and to assess the impact of hot and cold debriefing nursing students\' debriefing experience.
Specific Aims/Hypothesis Specific aim 1: Identify the efficacy of cold versus hot debriefing in BLS training for undergraduate nursing students\' BLS competence.
Hypothesis 1a: In both cold and hot debriefing groups, there is a significant difference in the BLS competence of undergraduate nursing students between pre-intervention and post-intervention.
Hypothesis 1b: Undergraduate nursing students who receive cold debriefing will show greater BLS competence than those who receive hot debriefing. Our approach to testing the aim is to conduct an experimental design study.
Specific aim 2: Assess the impact of hot and cold debriefing on undergraduate nursing students\' debriefing experience.
Hypothesis 2: Undergraduate nursing students who receive cold debriefing will show greater debriefing experience scores than those who receive hot debriefing.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Cold Debriefing | Experimental | Behavioral: Cold debriefingThe researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. |
| Hot Debriefing | Other | Behavioral: Hot DebriefingThe control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Junior or senior nursing students (i.e., in their third or fourth year of the BSN degree).
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Nursing students who are not junior or senior.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cold debriefingManipulation (experimental): The researcher assigned a cold debriefing (after one-day post-simulation) for undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group. | Behavioural | Cold Debriefing |
| Hot DebriefingThe control group received a hot debriefing (immediately after the simulation). | Behavioural | Hot Debriefing |
Primary outcome
Basic Life Support Competence
Time frame: Immediately after the intervention
Competence level was measured via the American Heart Association (2020) Basic Life Support competency checklist, which is a dichotomous rating scale of 0 (not done/done incorrectly) and 1 (done correctly); there was a total of 15 points. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
1 secondary outcome
Debriefing Experience Scale
Time frame: Immediately after the intervention
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Nov 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- BackgroundKolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
- Results publicationReed, S. J. (2012). Debriefing experience scale: Development of a tool to evaluate the student learning experience in debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(6), e211-e217.
- Results publication: PubMed 36503623Meguerdichian M, Bajaj K, Ivanhoe R, Lin Y, Sloma A, de Roche A, Altonen B, Bentley S, Cheng A, Walker K. Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022 Dec 12;7(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00236-x.
- Results publication: PubMed 33634592Ha EH. Effects of hot and cold debriefing in simulation with case-based learning. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2021 Feb 26:e12410. doi: 10.1111/jjns.12410. Online ahead of print.
- Results publication: PubMed 25455910Kessler DO, Cheng A, Mullan PC. Debriefing in the emergency department after clinical events: a practical guide. Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;65(6):690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.10.019. Epub 2014 Nov 15.
- Results publication: PubMed 23426138Couper K, Perkins GD. Debriefing after resuscitation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013 Jun;19(3):188-94. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32835f58aa.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. All collected IPD, all IPD that underlie results in a publication
Related trials for BLS Competence
Not yet recruiting
Generative AI and Gamified Simulation-Based Train-the-Trainer Basic Life Support Training for High School Teachers in Vietnam
Cardiac Arrest, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
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.
Fahad Alanezi, PhD Candidate, MSc, BSN principal investigator
University of Cincinnati
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Cold debriefing and Hot Debriefing in people with BLS Competence and Debriefing, run by University of Cincinnati at 1 site in United States.
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 29 Nov 2024. 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 United States. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 29 Nov 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Basic Life Support Competence (time frame: Immediately after the intervention). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06624449, which also lists 6 linked publications.
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 29 Nov 2024.