Comparing student nurse knowledge and performance of basic life support algorithm actions: an observational post-retention test design study.
Abstract
This study aims to identify which basic life support skills of student nurses deteriorate in a period of four months. Secondly, it investigates the link between a specific cognitive skill and its corresponding motor skill in BLS. The population for this study consisted of 169 general nursing students within the first year cohort of a three-year undergraduate nursing education program. Following a BLS course, a multiple-choice questionnaire and a BLS performance test on a manikin was administered two weeks (post) and four months (retention) after the course. Seven BLS subcomponents were compared. In both the post and retention test, knowledge was better than the corresponding motor skill for five of the seven subcomponents. Two weeks after training, more than 50% of the students failed to perform 'time to check respiration', 'ventilation volume', 'compression depth' and 'compression frequency' correctly. Four months after training, significantly more students reached a correct 'ventilation volume' but performed it incorrectly. Nurse educators are recommended to spend more time on hands-on skills practice than on theory. Special attention should be given to the performance of a correct ventilation technique, a sufficiently deep chest compression and a correct compression frequency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
BLS knowledge and psychomotor skills decay rapidly, often within months.
“both knowledge and psychomotor skills decay rapidly, often within months (5, 6)”
From Application effect of Miller’s pyramid teaching method based on HeartCode BLS in basic life support training for nursing students (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xu, W., Cheng, F., Li, Z., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1863479
- Authors
- Charlier, N., Van Der Stock, L., & Iserbyt, P.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Charlier, Nathalie
- Venue
- Nurse Education in Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 43
- Pages
- 102714
- ISSN
- 1471-5953 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3008401251
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nurse Education in Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- basic life support, nursing students, skill retention, chest compression, ventilation technique, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, nursing education, undergraduate nursing students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review