A total of 120 experienced nurses participated in the study. Table 1 shows the demographic profile of nurse participants. It could be seen that there are 60 (100%) participants for each of the control and experimental groups. In terms of age, the majority of the participants in the control group are males (n = 53), while the remaining seven (11.67%) are females. The same is true for the experimental group since males (n = 56) occupy more than 90% of the participants and only 4 females (6.67%) are in this group. In terms of age, the majority of the participants in the control group have ages belonging in the "31–40 years" bracket (n = 51), while the remaining 15.00% (n = 9) have ages ranging from 21–30 years. No participant in the control group was aged 41 or older. The majority of participants in the experimental group (n = 54) are between the ages of 31 and 40, while 8.33% (n = 5) are between the ages of 21 and 30. Only 1 (1.67%) participant in the experimental group has an age between 41 and 50. In terms of years of experience, it could be noticed that for both the control and experimental groups, only 1 (1.67%) has 1 to 3 years of experience while the remaining 59 (98.33%) comprise the majority of the respondents. In terms of the specialization of nurses in the control group, it could be noticed that an equal number (n = 12, 20%) were taken from each of the 5 specializations. In terms of specialization of nurses in the experimental group, 25% (n = 15) and 15% (n = 9) specialize in ED and OPD, respectively, and the rest have 20.00% (n = 12) each.
Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Participants
Category
|
Control
|
Experimental
|
|
n
|
%
|
n
|
%
|
A. Entire Group
|
60
|
100.00
|
60
|
100.00
|
B. Sex
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
53
|
88.33
|
56
|
93.33
|
Female
|
7
|
11.67
|
4
|
6.67
|
C. Age
|
|
|
|
|
21-30 years
|
9
|
15.00
|
5
|
8.33
|
31-40 years
|
51
|
85.00
|
54
|
90.00
|
41-50 years
|
0
|
0.00
|
1
|
1.67
|
D. Years of Experience
|
|
|
|
|
1 – 3
|
1
|
1.67
|
1
|
1.67
|
Greater than 3
|
59
|
98.33
|
59
|
98.33
|
E. Specialization
|
|
|
|
|
CCU
|
12
|
20.00
|
12
|
20.00
|
ED
|
12
|
20.00
|
15
|
25.00
|
MED-SURG
|
12
|
20.00
|
12
|
20.00
|
OPD
|
12
|
20.00
|
9
|
15.00
|
PERI-OP
|
12
|
20.00
|
12
|
20.00
|
The result in Table 2 shows that all the p-values are less than 0.01; hence, there is a significant difference between the control and experimental groups in terms of assessment, communication, clinical judgment, and patient safety. Based on the standard errors of the control and intervention groups, the result shows that the assessment of the control group has a better result and a smaller standard error of 0.0628 than that of the intervention group, which has a standard error of 0.085. The control group has a better result, which makes the hypothesis rejected with a standard error of 0.109 compared to a standard error of 0.136 for the intervention group. However, in clinical judgment, the intervention group has a better result with a standard error of 0.1418 than the control group with a standard error of 0.1432. Lastly, the patient safety of the intervention group has also shown a better result, with a standard error of 0.1147, than the control group, with a standard error of 0.122.
Table 2. Comparison of the CCEI scores according to the four subscales between control and intervention group.
Independent
T-test Results
|
Control Group
n = 60
|
Experimental Group
n = 60
|
p-value
|
Mean
|
Std. Dev.
|
Std. Err
|
Mean
|
Std. Dev.
|
Std. Err
|
|
CCEI-Assessment
|
1
|
0.487
|
0.0628
|
1.35
|
0.659
|
0.085
|
0.0012**
|
CCEI- Communication
|
1.7
|
0.849
|
0.109
|
2.73
|
1.055
|
0.136
|
0.0001**
|
CCEI - Clinical Judgement
|
1.3
|
1.109
|
0.1432
|
2.75
|
1.098
|
0.1418
|
0.0001**
|
CCEI - Patient Safety
|
1.18
|
0.947
|
0.122
|
2.58
|
0.888
|
0.1147
|
0.0001**
|
Significant p-value < 0.05* and p-value < 0.01*
Moreover, with the p-value of 0.0001, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the overall scores of control group and intervention group with 99% confidence interval (See Table3). Based on these findings, the utilization of standardized pre-briefing produces better overall competency performance on nurses during code blue simulation.
Table 3. Comparison of the overall CCE scores between control and intervention group.
Independent
T-test Results
|
Control Group
n = 60
|
Experimental Group
n = 60
|
p-value
|
Mean
|
Std. Dev.
|
(95% CI-L, CI- U)
|
Mean
|
Std. Dev.
|
(95% CI-L, CI – U)
|
Overall Result
|
5.13
|
3.18
|
(4.58,5.68)
|
9.45
|
2.547
|
(8.79, 10.1)
|
0.00001
|
Significant p-value < 0.05* and p-value < 0.01*
Table 4 showed the factors affecting the CCEI scores for those who were guided by the first dimension of DASH during pre-briefing (the experimental group). Aside from the age, the years of experience also have a significant effect on the CCEI scores, with p-values of 0.0232 and 0.0239, respectively. Using all demographic profiles as independent variables, the age range of 40 to 50 years old and years of experience greater than 3 years produce the most significant results in CCEI scores during the code blue simulation among those who attended the pre-briefing. Both gender and area of specialization were not found to be significantly associated with the CCEI scores in the experimental group.
Table 4. Regression analysis with the factors affecting the CCEI scores in the experimental group.
Instrument/Subscales
|
Estimate
|
Std. Error
|
T-value
|
P-value
|
Gender
|
-0.07827
|
0.1962
|
-0.399
|
0.6917
|
Age
|
0.82861
|
0.35315
|
2.346
|
0.0232*
|
Years of Experience
|
0.83493
|
0.35756
|
2.335
|
0.0239*
|
Specialization
|
-0.10882
|
0.12221
|
-0.89
|
0.3777
|
Significant p-value < 0.05* and p-value < 0.01*
Qualitative results. A total of 15 nurses participated in the qualitative part of the study. Five themes were drawn from the analysis: (1) setting the tone; (2) reducing stress levels and improving confidence; (3) establishing a safe learning environment; (4) a positive impact on overall perceptions of pre-briefing; and (5) Expectation vs Reality. See table 5 for the emerged themes and examples of participants quotations.
Table 5. Themes emerged from the Qualitative data analysis
Themes
|
Transcripts quota’s examples
|
Theme 1:
Setting the tone
|
“With the pre-briefing, it gives you a clear picture and a calming effect and know I will do it one by one and I will be corrected only when necessary. There is also confidentiality. In normal code drill, there are corrections immediately and you will be lost. These things in pre-briefing are effective”.
|
Theme 2:
Reducing stress levels and improving confidence
|
“The pre-briefing helped me reduced my stress level. It paved the way for better performance in code blue simulations”.
|
Theme 3:
Establishing a safe environment
|
“I felt comfortable because of the pre-briefing. I was a little bit nervous, but the pre-briefing helped. I did not feel being judged during the simulation and I was acceptant of any corrections because I know there’s always a room for improvement”.
|
Theme 4:
Positive impact on overall perceptions on pre-briefing
|
“I will be happy to attend simulations with pre-briefing. We are human and we make mistakes. Without establishing that in pre-briefing, we’ll be ashamed of our performance and excuse ourselves from future drills. For me, it was a good experience”.
|
Theme 4:
Expectation vs Reality
|
“In a real patient you will be able to see outcomes of your intervention, either good or bad, and you will be able to react to it spontaneously. However, in a simulation you won’t see the outcomes because it is just a dummy”.
|
Five themes were exposed after the examination of open codes. The first theme is "Setting the Tone." The participants mentioned the improvement of the simulation process as a result of pre-briefing. Most of the nurses described that with pre-briefing, expectations were clearer, and rapport was seamlessly established. These improvements in the process are essential to both the nurses and the simulation team in establishing connection and communication, as they were coming from different departments. The intervention group also appreciated the discussion of the scenario which was well-explained which improved their focus towards the simulation process. Notable quotes from the interview discussed that without pre-briefing there will be many obstacles, uncertainties, and lack of simulation orientation.
In relation to stress levels, a theme emerged from the interview that showed that code blue simulation will be better with pre-briefing, as the intervention group explained that it reduced their stress levels, they gained better understanding, and pre-briefing leads to better nurse performance. The nurses in the study admit that they still feel some amount of stress and anxiety, but the increased awareness during the pre-briefing helps them think more critically as they formulate strategies for handling the scenario. The nurses became more prepared, cautious, and confident. They gained better recall of the steps and other details when performing their expected tasks. In comparison to simulation without pre-briefing, nurses encounter difficulties, recognize weaknesses, fail to recall, and lose focus.
Another theme that has emerged is that pre-briefing establishes a safe environment among nurses, and it pertains to how learning experiences are improved with pre-briefing. With pre-briefing, the simulation team was more approachable to the intervention group. The nurses felt valued and were encouraged to openly discuss their feelings and thoughts. They were able to raise concerns and seek clarifications, which improved their understanding. The simulation team also shared reminders and were reinforcing the nurses. The overall experience with pre-briefing created a comfortable environment for learning, which is attractive to the nurses. Unlike with no pre-briefing, nurses were anxious and nervous, and encounters fear of being corrected or receiving failing scores especially for experienced nurses.
The fourth theme, Impact on Overall Perceptions of Pre-briefing, explains the thoughts of the nurses towards pre-briefing as a beneficial adjunct to simulation in enhancing competency. The nurses viewed the pre-briefing as an opportunity to learn. Hence, nurses suggested having more time for practice and taking breaks during pre-briefing. In doing so, nurses can gain mastery over the procedures even during the pre-briefing period. Adding more time will encourage more opportunities to fix concerns about the simulation before engaging. The intervention group discussed that code blue situation is not often encountered and described as rare but an essential competency for nurses. In fact, because code blue is viewed as not being an everyday experience, they may forget what they’ve learned in the simulation. It will become usual and simple for the nurses to perform the intervention using simulation on a regular basis, especially during outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic, which demands nurses be ready and efficient to engage in such emergency circumstances. The intervention group recommended that nurses should join frequent simulation with pre-briefing to reduce hesitancies in performing the tasks in real situations.
The last theme that emerged (expectation vs. reality) is that results in simulation are not the same as in real life. Despite establishing a fiction contract in pre-briefing, nurses view the entire process of pre-briefing and simulation as distinct from real situations. The responses to this theme by the respondents are varied but meaningful, as the intervention can improve the experience of nurses in code blue simulations both in fiction and in real-life situations. The materials used and the time to accomplish tasks like reviving the patient are not similar in real code blue situations. Thus, nurses will likely perform better during simulation than in real code-blue situations. The code blue simulation remains fictional to others, as nobody will be supporting or evaluating nurses by scoring their performance. Others were able to perform the procedures well in real-life code blue situations despite the fact that the situation was fictional due to the pre-briefing.