Abstract：
For nurses, clinical competency is paramount in ensuring that patients receive safe, high-quality care. Multi-patient simulation (MPS) in nursing education is gaining attention, and evidence shows its suitability for real-life situations. MPS can be an effective solution for nurses\' continuing clinical education.
This project compares the effectiveness of MPS (involving both a standardized patient and a high fidelity simulator) and a single high-fidelity simulation (single HFS; only involving a high fidelity simulator) for enhancing the clinical competency of nursing students.
A stratified, permuted, block randomized controlled study design was used.
Sixty undergraduate nursing students in years 3, 4, and 5 were selected to participate. Subgroups with each comprising three undergraduate nursing students from different years were formed.
The participants were randomized to receive either an MPS (intervention group) or single HFS (control group) for 1 day; they later received the same intervention after a 30-day washout period. One objectively measured questionnaire and two self-reported questionnaires were used to measure clinical competency: the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument (CCEI), Clinical Competence Questionnaire (CCQ), and Simulation Effectiveness Tool - Modified Questionnaire (SET-M).
The results revealed significant between-group differences. Specifically, the intervention group showed greater improvement than the control group in both the CCQ (linear contrast [d] = 71.4; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 53.407, 89.393; P < 0.001) and CCEI total scores (d = 7.17; 95 % CI = 5.837, 8.503; P < 0.001). The SET-M results indicated that 85 % of the participants (n = 51) strongly agreed that they felt more confident about performing a patient handover to the healthcare team after the simulation.
The study findings indicated that both the MPS and single HFS effectively enhanced students\' clinical competency. However, MPSs have superior educational outcomes relative to traditional single HFSs.
This project compares the effectiveness of MPS (involving both a standardized patient and a high fidelity simulator) and a single high-fidelity simulation (single HFS; only involving a high fidelity simulator) for enhancing the clinical competency of nursing students.
A stratified, permuted, block randomized controlled study design was used.
Sixty undergraduate nursing students in years 3, 4, and 5 were selected to participate. Subgroups with each comprising three undergraduate nursing students from different years were formed.
The participants were randomized to receive either an MPS (intervention group) or single HFS (control group) for 1 day; they later received the same intervention after a 30-day washout period. One objectively measured questionnaire and two self-reported questionnaires were used to measure clinical competency: the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument (CCEI), Clinical Competence Questionnaire (CCQ), and Simulation Effectiveness Tool - Modified Questionnaire (SET-M).
The results revealed significant between-group differences. Specifically, the intervention group showed greater improvement than the control group in both the CCQ (linear contrast [d] = 71.4; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 53.407, 89.393; P < 0.001) and CCEI total scores (d = 7.17; 95 % CI = 5.837, 8.503; P < 0.001). The SET-M results indicated that 85 % of the participants (n = 51) strongly agreed that they felt more confident about performing a patient handover to the healthcare team after the simulation.
The study findings indicated that both the MPS and single HFS effectively enhanced students\' clinical competency. However, MPSs have superior educational outcomes relative to traditional single HFSs.
摘要：
背景：对于护士来说，临床能力在确保患者接受安全，高质量的护理。多病人模拟(MPS)在护理教育中越来越受到重视,证据表明它适合现实生活。MPS可以成为护士继续临床教育的有效解决方案。
目的：该项目比较了MPS（包括标准化患者和高保真模拟器）和单个高保真模拟（单个HFS；仅包括高保真模拟器）的有效性，以提高护生的临床能力。
方法：分层，置换,采用区组随机对照研究设计.
方法：选择60名3、4、5年级护理本科生参加。组成亚组，每个亚组由三名来自不同年份的护理本科生组成。
方法：参与者随机接受MPS（干预组）或单一HFS（对照组）1天；他们在30天的清除期后接受相同的干预。使用一份客观测量问卷和两份自我报告问卷来测量临床能力：Creighton能力评估工具（CCEI），临床能力问卷(CCQ)，和模拟有效性工具-修改问卷(SET-M)。
结果：结果显示组间差异显著。具体来说,干预组在CCQ(线性对比[d]=71.4;95%可信区间[CI]=53.407,89.393;P<0.001)和CCEI总分(d=7.17;95%CI=5.837,8.503;P<0.001)方面均表现出比对照组更大的改善.SET-M结果表明，85％的参与者（n=51）强烈同意他们对模拟后将患者移交给医疗团队更有信心。
结论：研究结果表明，MPS和单一HFS都有效地提高了学生的临床能力。然而,与传统的单一HFS相比，MPS具有更好的教育效果。
目的：该项目比较了MPS（包括标准化患者和高保真模拟器）和单个高保真模拟（单个HFS；仅包括高保真模拟器）的有效性，以提高护生的临床能力。
方法：分层，置换,采用区组随机对照研究设计.
方法：选择60名3、4、5年级护理本科生参加。组成亚组，每个亚组由三名来自不同年份的护理本科生组成。
方法：参与者随机接受MPS（干预组）或单一HFS（对照组）1天；他们在30天的清除期后接受相同的干预。使用一份客观测量问卷和两份自我报告问卷来测量临床能力：Creighton能力评估工具（CCEI），临床能力问卷(CCQ)，和模拟有效性工具-修改问卷(SET-M)。
结果：结果显示组间差异显著。具体来说,干预组在CCQ(线性对比[d]=71.4;95%可信区间[CI]=53.407,89.393;P<0.001)和CCEI总分(d=7.17;95%CI=5.837,8.503;P<0.001)方面均表现出比对照组更大的改善.SET-M结果表明，85％的参与者（n=51）强烈同意他们对模拟后将患者移交给医疗团队更有信心。
结论：研究结果表明，MPS和单一HFS都有效地提高了学生的临床能力。然而,与传统的单一HFS相比，MPS具有更好的教育效果。
