Effectiveness of high versus mixed-level fidelity simulation on undergraduate nursing students: A randomised controlled trial.

Aim: This study evaluates the impact of high-fidelity simulation on the acquisition and retention of competencies in nursing students.

Background: High-fidelity simulation provides a realistic and risk-free environment allowing students to practice, which potentially enhances the acquisition and retention of required competencies.

Design: A blinded, randomised clinical trial with three arms was conducted with a pretest and a follow-up at 6 months (post-test 1) and 12 months (post-test 2).

Competencies in Basic Life Support after a Course with or without Rescue Ventilation: Historical Cohort Study.

Background: Simplifying the international guidelines to improve skills after training and their retention over time has been one of the top priorities in recent years. The objective of our study was to compare the results of the practical skills learned during training in basic life support with and without pulmonary ventilation.

Methods: This was a comparative study of historical cohorts consisting of undergraduate students in health sciences.

Where do nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses? A retrospective study.

Background: Research internationally shows that nursing students find dosage calculation difficult. Identifying the specific aspects of dose calculation procedures that are most commonly associated with errors would enable teaching to be targeted where it is most needed, thus improving students' calculation skills. The aim of this study was to analyze where specifically nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses.

Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method.

Objectives: To evaluate the immediate and 9-month results of blended versus standard training in basic life support and the use of an automatic external defibrillator (BLS/AED).

Material And Methods: Randomized trial comparing the results of standard BLS/AED training to blended training. The control group received 4 hours of standard instruction from a trainer and the experimental blended-training group received 2 hours of virtual training and 2 hours of in-person instruction.