Simulation-Based Versus Traditional Training for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Care in Nursing Students - NCT07929389

Sponsor: Ataturk University Conditions: Nursing Education This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the effects of simulation-based training and traditional demonstration-based training on knowledge and practical skills related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) care among first-year nursing students. The study included 40 nursing students who were randomly assigned to two groups: a simulation-based training group (n=20) and a traditional training group (n=20). All participants received four hours of theoretical instruction on PEG care, enteral feeding, and medication administration. The simulation group then participated in a two-hour structured training session using a simulation mannequin and an interactive clinical scenario. The control group received a two-hour traditional demonstration-based laboratory session. PEG-related knowledge was assessed before training and one week after the practical training sessions using a 25-item knowledge test. Practical skills were evaluated after training through an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) using a 25-step skills checklist. The study aimed to determine whether simulation-based training was more effective than traditional demonstration-based training in improving nursing students' knowledge and practical skills related to PEG care. This study was conducted as a two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a pretest-posttest design at a university nursing faculty in Türkiye during the spring semester of the 2025-2026 academic year. The study population consisted of first-year undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the Fundamentals of Nursing course. Eligible students were aged 18 years or older, were taking the course for the first time, had no previous health-related educational background, and voluntarily provided written informed consent. A total of 40 students were randomly assigned to the simulation-based training group (n=20) or the traditional demonstration-based training group (n=20). Random allocation was performed by an individual independent of the research team using a random numbers table. To reduce contamination between groups, practical training sessions were conducted at different times. At baseline, participants completed a personal information form and a 25-item PEG Knowledge Test. All students subsequently received four hours of standardized theoretical instruction covering PEG care, enteral feeding, medication administration, stoma care, and prevention of complications. The control group received a two-hour laboratory training session in which PEG care, feeding, and medication administration procedures were demonstrated using training models. No simulation-based scenarios were included. The intervention group participated in a two-hour structured simulation-based training session conducted in a simulation laboratory. Students practiced PEG care, feeding, and medication administration using a simulation mannequin within an interactive clinical scenario. One week after the practical training sessions, PEG-related knowledge was reassessed using the same 25-item knowledge test. The test was scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge. Practical skill performance was assessed using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) and a 25-step PEG Skills Checklist. Each step was scored as correctly performed (2 points), incompletely or incorrectly performed (1 point), or not performed (0 points), yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 50. Higher scores indicated better practical skill performance. The instructors conducting the OSCE assessments were blinded to group allocation. Statistical analyses were performed by an independent statistician using masked group codes. After completion of data collection, students in the control group were also offered simulation-based training to ensure equal educational opportunities.