Low-Fidelity Simulation Versus Live Human Arms for Intravenous Cannulation Training: A Qualitative Assessment
In the military, as well as in civilian medical settings, the question of whether to use simulation versus live tissue remains in debate. The purpose of this paper is to examine qualitative data provided by students (n = 260) attending the Army’s Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) program who completed peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC) training using either a Simulated Human Arm (SHA) (n = 135) or a Live Human Arm (LHA) (n = 124). Students provided subjective responses in a written format pertaining to their PIVC training method. Data patterns were assessed using Spradley’s semantic relationship approach. Results reveal that both those using a SHA and a LHA reported feeling confident following training, however the reasons for their confidence differed. Those using a SHA felt confident due to the opportunity to repeatedly practice on a simulated arm, while those learning on a LHA felt assured knowing they had performed PIVC successfully on a live human during LPN training.
KeywordsSimulation Intravenous infusion Nursing Training
Thanks to the students of the Army’s LPN Program (68WM6) for their outstanding support, and a special thanks to Mr. Robert S. Jones (PI) at the Fort Sam Houston Department of Nursing Science, Dr. Valerie J Rice, Team Lead, ARL-HRED-ATSD, AMEDD Field Element, and Dr. Leah Enders, DCS Corp.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Department of Nursing Science, or the U.S. Government.
- 1.Kantor, G.: Net Wellness. Retrieved from IV Complications. http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/anesthesiology/ivcomplications.cfm (2016)
- 2.Rotem, H.: The best and the worst: students’ experience of clinical education. Aust. J. Adv. Nurs. 11, 26–33 (1994)Google Scholar
- 5.Seropian, M., Brown, K., Samuelson Gavilanes, J., Drigger, B.: Simulation: not just a manikin. J. Nurs. Educ. 43(4), 164–169 (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Good, M.: Patient simulation for training basic and advanced clinical skills. Med. Educ. 37, 14–21 (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Partin, J., Payne, T., Slemmons, M.: Student’s perceptions of the learning experiences using high-fidelity simulation to teach concepts relative to obstetrics. Teach. Technol. 32(3), 186–188 (2011)Google Scholar
- 14.Munshi, F., Hani, L., Alyousef, S.: Low-versus high fidelity simulation in teaching and assessing clinical skills. J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci. 10(1), 12–15 (2015)Google Scholar
- 15.Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C., Stout, R., Ricci, K., Hildabrand, A.: Using cognitive task analysis to develop simulation-based training for medical tasks. Mil. Med. 178, 15–21 (2013)Google Scholar
- 16.Sittner, B., Aebersold, M., Paige, J., Graham, L., Schram, A., Decker, S., Lioce, L.: INACSL standards of best practice for simulation: past, present and future. Nurs. Edu. Perspect. 36, 295–298 (2015)Google Scholar
- 18.Savage, E., Tenn, C., Vartanian, O., Blackler, K., Sullivan-Kwantes, W., Garrett, M., Blais, A., Jarmasz, J., Peg, H., Tein, H.: A comparison of live tissue training and high-fidelity patient simulator: a pilot study in battlefield trauma training. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 79(4), S157–S163 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.U.S. Army Program Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation.: Product manager for medical simulation. Retrieved 2016, from http://peostri.army.mil/PRODUCT/MSTC (2015)
- 21.U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Simulation and Training Technology Center.: Mobil medical lane trainer improving training effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.teamorlando.org/mobile-medical-lane-trainer-improving-training-effectiveness (2013)
- 22.Carr, P., Glynn, R., Dineen, B., Flaherty, G., Kropmans, T., Kerin, M.: Interns’ attitudes to IV cannulation: a KAP study. Br. J. Nurs. 20, 15–20 (2011)Google Scholar
- 23.LeCompte, M.: Qualitative data. Theor. Pract. 39(3), 146–154 (2000)Google Scholar