Randomized trial compares consciousness assessment skills in nursing students using two training methods, suggesting improved outcomes with standardized patients.
BACKGROUND: Ensuring accurate assessment of patients’ health is paramount in nursing interventions. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) plays a crucial role in evaluating patients’ conditions and is deemed a fundamental clinical skill for nursing teams. However, errors in GCS assessment can significantly impact patient care, particularly as nursing students often lack sufficient training in assessing consciousness levels. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of standardized patient-based training and video-based training (VBT) on nursing students’ ability to assess the level of consciousness. METHOD AND MATERIALS: This randomized controlled trial study included nursing students from the fourth semester in 2023. Seventy students were selected through convenience sampling and randomly allocated to two groups ( n = 35 per group). Group 1 received VBT, while Group 2 received training with standardized patients. The skill of assessing consciousness levels was evaluated using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination method. Data analysis was performed using SPSS V22 statistical software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: The mean score of the verbal response assessment in the standardized patient-assisted education group was 3.42 ± 0.84 and that in the video-based training (VBT) group was 2.85 ± 1.09, which was statistically significant ( P = 0.025). Additionally, the total test score was significantly higher in the standardized patient-assisted training group (13.21 ± 1.49) compared to the VBT group (12.15 ± 2.22) ( P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Training with standardized patients significantly improves nursing students’ ability to assess consciousness levels compared to VBT. This approach aligns with health policy benchmarks by promoting safe, experiential learning methods, ultimately enhancing psychomotor skills while minimizing risks to real patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garizi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: