Procedural Sedation Training: Competency Verification Through Simulation
2024
- 82Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage82
- Downloads55
- Abstract Views27
Project Description
A 450-bed tertiary hospital in Central Illinois lacked a standardized process for competency verification for procedural sedation care by registered nurses (RNs). Despite recommendations by many organizations, there are no consistent or standardized guidelines for verifying competency in nursing care of the procedural sedation. This project implemented a Procedural Sedation Training Course which comprised an in-person prelearning lecture, a group simulation learning experience, and an individual verification of competency through simulation.Fifty-six RNs completed the Procedural Sedation Training Course and demonstrated competency through simulation, and 24 of these RNs completed a procedural sedation within the eight-month pilot period. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected from all 56 of the learners via the National League for Nursing Self-Confidence for Learning in Simulation (NLN) and the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory (SLEI). Documentation compliance reports were reviewed to compare the procedural sedation documentation compliance for nursing-sensitive indicators of the pilot participants and all team member compliance. In addition, hospital safety event reports were reviewed for the pilot period.RNs were able to effectively validate competence via simulation, and survey results demonstrated high self-confidence, learner satisfaction, and effectiveness in meeting learning objectives. Documentation compliance of study participants when compared with the general team showed consistent compliance rates with a less than 1% difference in any of the three nursing-sensitive indicators. Safety events reported during the pilot period indicated that RNs were able to successfully rescue sedation patients who experienced adverse events.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know