Digital Microlearning for Patient-Safety Readiness in Nursing Students

Medical Education, Nursing Education, Patient Safety

Digital microlearning, Nursing students, Patient safety awareness, Clinical error recognition, Surgical clinical practice, Educational intervention, Mixed methods, Randomized controlled trial, Clinical decision-making

This randomized controlled trial evaluated whether a seven-day, patient-safety-focused digital microlearning program improved sustained clinical error recognition and the transfer of safety learning among second-year nursing students entering surgical clinical practice. Ninety students were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to digital microlearning plus standard education or standard education alone. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately after the intervention, at the end of the first week of surgical clinical practice, and at the end of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice. Weekly ecological momentary assessment prompts examined safety-oriented behavior during clinical practice. Blinded performance tasks assessed objective clinical transfer, and an explanatory qualitative component explored how and under what conditions students applied the learning in practice.

The transition from classroom-based nursing education to surgical clinical practice is a critical period for patient safety. Students entering clinical practice must recognize safety risks and clinical errors, prioritize an appropriate response, and communicate or escalate concerns within a supervised clinical environment. Short, scenario-based digital learning may support this transition by linking recognizable clinical cues with specific safety actions and by providing repeated retrieval and corrective feedback close to the start of clinical practice. This study was a single-center, two-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial embedded within an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (QUAN to qual). It was conducted among second-year undergraduate nursing students enrolled in surgical nursing at the Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, Agri Ibrahim Cecen University. Of 111 students assessed for eligibility, 21 were excluded before randomization and 90 were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. All randomized students were analyzed according to their assigned group. The a priori sample-size calculation was based on clinical error recognition measured across T0-T3, with T3 designated as the principal endpoint. Assuming f=0.20, two groups, four measurements, alpha=0.05, 80% power, a within-participant correlation of 0.50 and epsilon=1.0, the minimum sample size was approximately 76; 90 students were randomized to allow for attrition. The intervention group received standard education plus seven consecutive days of mobile-optimized digital microlearning before surgical clinical placement. One module was delivered each day and lasted approximately 3-5 minutes. Each module followed a consistent structure: a surgical patient-safety scenario, a pause to identify the risk, a forced-choice retrieval question, corrective feedback, and a cue-action takeaway. Content addressed patient identification, medication safety, documentation omissions, deterioration cues, falls and other safety risks, prioritization, escalation, and decision-making under stress. Platform analytics captured module completion, time on task, retrieval-question accuracy, feedback viewing, and technical delivery. The control group received the standard undergraduate curriculum without additional digital microlearning. Standard education consisted of two two-hour surgical patient-safety lectures and a written guideline. Both groups subsequently completed seven weeks of routine surgical clinical practice, one day per week, under the same usual supervision. The comparator was not attention matched. Outcomes were assessed at baseline before the program (T0), immediately after the seven-day intervention (T1), at the end of the first week of surgical clinical practice (T2), and at the end of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice (T3). The primary outcome was clinical error recognition performance, with T3 designated as the principal endpoint. Alternate 10-scenario assessment forms were drawn from an expert-reviewed bank of 15 retained surgical patient-safety scenarios. Each response was scored 1 for correct identification of the safety error and 0 for an incorrect or absent identification. Form scores were converted to a 0-100 scale as (number correct/10) × 100, yielding 10-point score units. Secondary outcomes included patient-safety awareness, clinical decision-making under stress, clinical practice readiness, clinical self-confidence, blinded objective transfer, weekly safety-oriented behavioral transfer, and intervention acceptability. At T3, objective transfer was assessed using a blinded Objective Structured Clinical Examination safety station, an independently scored transfer vignette, and a standardized escalation task. During each of the seven clinical weeks, students completed one ecological momentary assessment prompt at the end of their scheduled clinical practice day. The prompt recorded whether a safety risk was noticed, whether an appropriate response occurred, and whether the concern was escalated or discussed with a supervisor. Confidence, stress, reflective depth, and a brief contemporaneous note were collected as separate contextual items. Free-text notes were not used to calculate the behavioral index or quantitative group-effect estimates and did not contribute to the interview-derived qualitative themes. Potentially identifying patient information was removed during data cleaning and was not retained in the analytical dataset. After completion of the quantitative follow-up, 15 intervention participants were interviewed. The purposive sampling frame sought variation across response profile, engagement, sex, age, digital readiness, and placement type. The achieved sample varied in sex, age, digital readiness, and completion exposure but was homogeneous on the derived response and engagement classifications. The interviews produced 30 coded records; these were coding units, not additional participants. Repeated identical wording in the coded records was deduplicated for reporting and was not counted as additional evidence of thematic breadth. Quantitative estimates, weekly ecological momentary assessment patterns, objective-transfer findings, and qualitative themes were integrated in a joint display to explain how and under what conditions transfer occurred. The study involved an educational intervention only and did not include invasive procedures, drugs, or medical devices. Research participation was operationally separated from academic assessment. Written informed consent was obtained by a researcher without responsibility for course or clinical grades before any study procedure. Students were informed that refusal or withdrawal would not affect grades, attendance, placement allocation, or usual education. Interview participation and audio recording were explained and consented to separately. Unintended effects and access burdens were solicited through the weekly research prompts and again at T3; intervention-related experiences were distinguished from burdens associated with the study's ecological momentary assessment and reminder procedures.

No related papers found yet.

Turkey (Türkiye)