Cited by 25Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareInnovations in Medical Education

Comparing student nurse knowledge and performance of basic life support algorithm actions: an observational post-retention test design study.

Charlier, Nathalie, Van Der Stock, Lien, Iserbyt, Peter·2020·Nurse Education in Practice

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102714

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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