Application of the educational method of realistic simulation in the treatment of pressure injuries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3946.3357Keywords:
Wounds and Injuries, High Fidelity Simulation Training, Nurses' Practice Patterns, Knowledge, Prevention and Control, TeachingAbstract
Objective: to evaluate the use of realistic simulation as a strategy to promote teaching about pressure injuries. Method: This is a quasi-experimental study. A modified and translated version of the Pieper Pressure Ulcer knowledge test was applied. Kappa statistical analysis was used to assess the professionals’ knowledge in the realistic simulation using the SPSS software. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Seventy-seven nursing professionals participated in the realistic simulation, the majority (72.7%) being nursing technicians. Regarding the knowledge of primary and secondary coverage techniques, the Kappa index went from 0.56 (p=0.002) in the pre-test to 0.87 (p=0.001) in the post-test. As for the sterile dressing technique, there was a variation from 0.55 (p=0.002) in the pre-test to 0.91 (p=0.001) in the post-test. Regarding the cleaning of pressure injuries, there was a variation from 0.81 (CI: 0.62-0.84) in the pre-test to 0.91 (0.85-0.97) in the post-test. The knowledge about the use of a sterile spatula to distribute the dressing in the wound increased from an agreement index from regular to good. Conclusion: The introduction of the realistic simulation in the clinical practice has created quality assessment indicators for the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
