Background/purpose Standardized training for emergency nurses should include effective methods to develop rapid response, teamwork, and stress resistance. Traditional simulation-based training may lack the intensity and unpredictability of real emergencies. This study evaluated a progressive real rescue participation strategy compared to traditional simulation training. Methods A retrospective analysis included 235 emergency standardized training nurses from May 2022 to April 2025. They were divided into a Traditional Training group ( n = 126, simulation and theory only) and a Real Rescue Training group ( n = 109, simulation/theory plus phased participation in actual resuscitation). Validated scales assessed rapid response (TDMI), team climate (TCI), resilience (CD-RISC), burnout (MBI), and critical thinking (CTDI-CV) before and after the 6-month training. Department exit assessments and nursing satisfaction were also compared. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable. Both groups improved significantly on all post-training scales. However, the Real Rescue group showed significantly greater improvement than the Traditional group in all dimensions of rapid response (TDMI subscales, all p 0.05), team collaboration (TCI subscales, all p 0.05), stress resistance (CD-RISC subscales, all p 0.05), critical thinking (CTDI-CV subscales, all p 0.05), and reduced burnout (MBI subscales, all p 0.01). The Real Rescue group also scored higher on theoretical ( p = 0.02) and clinical skills exit assessments ( p = 0.01) and achieved significantly higher nursing satisfaction ( p = 0.01). Conclusion Real-rescue training is more effective than traditional methods in improving emergency nurses’ critical skills and psychological resilience. This approach should be integrated into standardized training programs to better prepare nurses for real-world emergencies.
Feng et al. (Mon,) studied this question.