Comparing the impact of HFS, LFS, & VT of oral medication administration on state anxiety with first year undergraduate nursing students
Presentation
Overview
Overview
Description
Abstract
Background: Competent and safe nursing care is essential in professional nursing practice. This is especially true in the area of medication administration. Nursing students are particularly vulnerable to making medication errors due to inexperience and anxiety when taking care of patients. To lessen anxiety and increase competence, nursing students are required to practice medication administration prior to performing this skill in the clinical setting. Nursing students benefit from many educational techniques, but different training methods in medication administration may affect students differently in regards to competence and levels of anxiety.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to measure differences in state anxiety level from pre-training to post-training when participants are trained with high-fidelity simulation (HFS) training, low-fidelity simulation (LFS) training, or video training (VT) to learn the skill of safe and competent medication administration.
Methods: Forty-four first year undergraduate nursing students completed this investigatory research study. Participants were randomly assigned to HFS, LFS, or VT groups and had an hour of reading to complete prior to training. On the first day of training, participants filled out a demographic form and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory for State Anxiety (STAI-SA). All participants watched a 20 minute video about oral medication administration and then the participants experienced a three hour training session in HFS, LFS, or VT. Two to six weeks post-training, participants filled out the STAI-SA a second time. This was immediately prior to administering oral medication in the clinical facility. Results were analyzed using two way repeated ANOVA.
Results: The results of this study supported the null hypothesis. There were no significant differences in state anxiety levels between the three methods of simulation training.
Conclusions: Although the results did not reach significance, there was a trend in scores that suggested that HFS and LFS methods decreased state anxiety from pre-training to post-training and VT increased state anxiety from pre-training to post-training.
Implications for Practice: This research supports the use of any of the three training techniques as there was no significant difference in state anxiety levels. Further research is required to investigate trends and substantiate the findings from this study.
