AzTrials
AzTrials

Cardiac and Respiratory ArrestSSTNCT07803861

SST in Emergency Education

An observational study of Cardiac and Respiratory Arrest, run by Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine at 1 site in China.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study looks back at how the investigatorsll two different teaching methods work for training medical and nursing students in CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), a life-saving emergency procedure used when someone's heart stops. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
Conditions the study is for
Cardiac and Respiratory Arrest
What is being tested?
case-based scenario simulation teaching
How many people
69 participants
Where
1 siteChina
Study dates
1 Sep 2024to 30 Dec 2025
Phase
Observational
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 Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: Enrolled 69 medical and nursing interns rotating at our hospital from September 2024 to November 2025.

Who may be able to join

  • First-time clinical internship;
  • No prior BLS certification;
  • Attendance rate ≥ 90%.

Who cannot join

  • Leave of absence ≥10% during the training period;
  • Withdrawal from the study for other reasons after enrollment.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

China1 site
  • the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine

    Hangzhou

Other trials in China

About this study

Official title: The Application of Scenario Simulation Teaching and Confidence Behavior Evaluation in Emergency Medicine Teaching

This study looks back at how the investigatorsll two different teaching methods work for training medical and nursing students in CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), a life-saving emergency procedure used when someone's heart stops. the investigators want to find out whether learning through realistic emergency case simulations helps students gain better skills and knowledge than traditional classroom lectures.

The study reviews training records of medical and nursing interns-students in their first hands-on hospital training-who completed CPR training betthe investigatorsen September 2024 and November 2025. the investigators included students who had no prior CPR certification and who attended most of their training sessions.

Read more

Because this is a retrospective study, no one needs to take part in any new activities or visits. Researchers will analyze existing training records, test scores, and anonymous survey responses that the investigatorsre already collected during past training sessions. One group of students learned CPR through traditional lectures and instructor demonstrations. The other group learned through hands-on case-based simulations, where they practiced working together as a medical team in realistic emergency scenarios.

This research may help hospitals choose better ways to teach CPR to future doctors and nurses. If case-based simulation proves more effective, more students could receive this type of training, which may help them respond more confidently and effectively in real-life emergencies. Ultimately, better-prepared healthcare professionals may improve care for patients experiencing cardiac arrest.

There are no direct risks to participants. The study only uses existing anonymous teaching records, and no personal identities will be shared in any study reports.

Read the detailed description

Clinical clerkship in emergency medicine represents a critical transition period for medical students, bridging the gap from theoretical knowledge to practical application. The traditional "didactic lecture + bedside teaching" model has the investigatorsll-documented limitations, including disconnection betthe investigatorsen theory and practice, passive student engagement, and insufficient training in clinical reasoning.

In recent years, innovative pedagogical models-such as the Flipped Classroom (FC) combined with the SNAPPS structured clinical reasoning framework, and Case-Based Scenario Simulation Teaching (CBSST)-have demonstrated promising outcomes in emergency and critical care medical education. While traditional lecture-based instruction falls short in fostering active learning and critical thinking, case-based scenario simulation immerses learners in highly realistic clinical contexts, enabling interns to experience the urgency of emergency care before actual clinical practice and to master the core elements of team-based resuscitation.

Entrustable Professional Activities, EPAs has gained increasing recognition in healthcare training. Simulation-based collaborative training betthe investigatorsen medical and nursing students improves role clarification, facilitates task coordination, and narrows knowledge-system gaps betthe investigatorsen disciplines. Hothe investigatorsver, existing studies have largely focused on general clinical skills rather than specifically targeting CPR scenarios involving collaborative medical-nursing intern teams. Furthermore, there is a paucity of systematic evaluations regarding the effectiveness of case-based scenario simulation in this specific context.

Previous single-center randomized controlled trials have shown that the FC+SNAPPS model significantly improves interns' theoretical knowledge, Mini-CEX clinical core competencies (history taking, physical examination, clinical assessment, and clinical judgment), and teaching satisfaction. Similarly, CBSST has been shown to simultaneously enhance theoretical scores, procedural skills, clinical judgment, and teamwork among medical and nursing interns during CPR training. Nevertheless, current research remains limited in several aspects:

  1. Limited evaluation dimensions: Most studies rely on immediate theoretical examinations and Mini-CEX skill scores as primary outcomes, lacking assessment of whether trainees "can be trusted to perform professional activities independently"-a core competency indicator.
  2. Insufficient model comparison: Existing studies predominantly compare a single innovative model against conventional instruction, with little direct comparison betthe investigatorsen different innovative models or exploration of synergistic effects.
  3. Limited external validity: Single-center, small-sample designs restrict generalizability.
  4. Unknown long-term effects: There is a lack of longitudinal follow-up regarding knowledge retention, skill maintenance, and clinical entrustment decision-making capacity.

Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) represent a competency-based core assessment framework in medical education, emphasizing supervising physicians' entrustment decisions regarding whether a learner can independently execute a specific clinical activity. EPA evaluation extends beyond "can they do it" (knowledge and skills) to encompass trust and behavioral competence, aligning closely with the high-risk, practice-intensive nature of emergency medicine. Incorporating EPA as a guiding evaluation tool can compensate for the limitations of traditional Mini-CEX in assessing "independent decision-making and responsibility-bearing," thereby providing more clinically practical evidence for teaching model reform.

Being tested
case-based scenario simulation teaching
Keywords
Scenario simulation teaching, Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise
Medical subject headings
Apnea

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • case-based scenario simulation teachingOther

    The intervention group received case-based scenario simulation teaching with interprofessional team training, consisting of five stages

Study groups in NCT07803861
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
control groupReceived conventional lecture-based CPR training.
intervention groupreceived case-based scenario simulation teaching with interprofessional team training, consisting of five stages
Receives: Other: case-based scenario simulation teaching

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. theoretical exam

    The assessment included a theoretical exam (maximum score: 100 points)

    Measured: up to 2 weeks

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Mini-CEX Scores

    Prior to the study, both assessors participated in a 2-hour calibration session reviewing standardized Mini-CEX rating criteria and benchmark video recordings. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient based on 10 independently scored pilot cases. The kappa value was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.72-0.98), indicating excellent agreement between the two assessors. The Mini-CEX scoring system uses a three-level, 9-point scale, which is categorized as follows: Needs Improvement (1-3 points, indicating very poor, poor, and average), Pass (4-6 points, indicating good, moderate, and fair), and Excellent (7-9 points, indicating excellent, very good, and exceeding expectations). This evaluation system covers four dimensions: knowledge mastery, operational skills, clinical judgment, and team collaboration, with a maximum score of 36 points

    Measured: up to 2 weeks

  2. Questionnaire Survey

    The satisfaction questionnaire was developed based on established dimensions of instructional design and learner engagement identified in health professions education literature[8], and adapted for the specific context of CPR simulation training. Content validity was ensured through review by a panel of three clinical education experts (including BLS instructors and medical educators), who evaluated the relevance, comprehensiveness, and representativeness of the five dimensions (course content, course resources, classroom interaction, teaching methods, and learning burden) and confirmed that all items adequately reflected the constructs of interest in simulation-based CPR education.

    Prior to formal administration, the questionnaire underwent pilot testing with 10 medical and nursing interns who were not included in the main study sample. The pilot test confirmed the clarity of item wording, logical flow of dimensions, and appropriateness of the 5-point rating scale. Internal consisten

    Measured: up to 2 weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted4 Sep 2026
  2. Study start1 Sep 2024
  3. Primary completion30 Nov 2025
  4. Study completion30 Dec 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
69 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07803861
Sponsor's protocol ID
2026-0693
Other IDs
20230242,20240410
Acronym
SST
Status last verified
Aug 2026
First submitted
25 Aug 2026
Last updated
4 Sep 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No: Due to institutional data privacy policies and the retrospective use of anonymized teaching records, individual participant data cannot be shared outside the research team to protect trainee confidentiality.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Cardiac and Respiratory Arrest, run by Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine at 1 site in China.

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 3 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 4 Sep 2026. 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 China. 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?

theoretical exam (time frame: up to 2 weeks). 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 4 Sep 2026.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in