Aggression, Agitation Management, Verbal De-Escalation
Conditions
Keywords
Verbal De-Escalation, Agitation Management, Aggression, Simulation Training, Patient Simulation, Nurses, Emergency Nursing, Aggression Perception, Impact of Aggression
Brief summary
This mixed-methods randomized controlled study aims to evaluate the effects of verbal de-escalation-based simulation training on emergency department nurses' knowledge of agitation management, perceptions of aggression, and the extent to which they are affected by aggressive and violent behaviors. A total of 78 emergency department nurses will be randomly assigned to an intervention group (n=39) or a control group (n=39). Both groups will receive the same standard training program on verbal de-escalation-based agitation management. After the standard training, the intervention group will participate in standardized patient simulation and debriefing sessions. Outcomes will be assessed before the intervention, after the intervention, and at a three-month follow-up. In addition, focus group interviews will be conducted with participants in the intervention group at the three-month follow-up to explore their experiences with the simulation-based training.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALStandard Verbal De-Escalation Training
Participants will receive a five-session standard training program on verbal de-escalation-based agitation management. The program covers recognition of agitation and aggression, perceptions and interpretation of aggression, assessment and safe management of the agitated patient, verbal de-escalation principles and techniques, and approaches to protect and strengthen nurses' well-being.
BEHAVIORALVerbal De-Escalation-Based Simulation Training
Following the standard training, participants in the intervention group will take part in a standardized patient simulation involving an agitated patient. The simulation includes prebriefing, scenario-based practice, and structured debriefing based on the PEARLS framework. A structured observation form will be used to provide feedback during debriefing and will not be used as an outcome measure.
Sponsors
Uskudar University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
The statistical analyst will be blinded to group allocation during the statistical analysis.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Working as a nurse in the adult emergency department of the hospital where the study will be conducted * Working full-time as a nurse * Willing to participate in the study
Exclusion criteria
* Being on leave or otherwise unable to work during the study period * Having previously received simulation-based training on verbal de-escalation
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Agitation Management Knowledge Test Score | Baseline; immediately after completion of the simulation and debriefing sessions in the intervention group (with the control group assessed at the corresponding time point); and 3 months after completion of the intervention period. | Agitation management knowledge will be assessed using the researcher-developed Agitation Management Knowledge Test. The test consists of 25 items with three response options: True, False, and Don't Know. Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge of agitation management and verbal de-escalation. |
| Change in Functional Perception of Aggression Score | Baseline; immediately after completion of the simulation and debriefing sessions in the intervention group (with the control group assessed at the corresponding time point); and 3 months after completion of the intervention period. | Functional perception of aggression will be assessed using the functional subscale of the Perception of Aggression Scale (POAS). The POAS consists of 29 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The functional subscale consists of 12 items. The mean subscale score is calculated by dividing the sum of the item scores by the number of items in the subscale and ranges from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency to perceive aggression as functional, acceptable, and a healthy response. |
| Change in Dysfunctional Perception of Aggression Score | Baseline; immediately after completion of the simulation and debriefing sessions in the intervention group (with the control group assessed at the corresponding time point); and 3 months after completion of the intervention period. | Dysfunctional perception of aggression will be assessed using the dysfunctional subscale of the Perception of Aggression Scale (POAS). The POAS consists of 29 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The dysfunctional subscale consists of 17 items. The mean subscale score is calculated by dividing the sum of the item scores by the number of items in the subscale and ranges from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency to perceive aggression as dysfunctional, unacceptable, and undesirable. |
| Change in Impact of Patient Aggression Score | Baseline; immediately after completion of the simulation and debriefing sessions in the intervention group (with the control group assessed at the corresponding time point); and 3 months after completion of the intervention period. | Impact of patient aggression will be assessed using the Impact of Patient Aggression on Carers Scale (IMPACS). The scale consists of 7 items and two subscales: Corruption of Relation Between Care Provider and Patient and Not Feeling Confident. Total scores range from 7 to 35, with higher scores indicating a greater negative impact of patient aggression. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived Simulation Effectiveness Score | Immediately after completion of the debriefing session following the simulation. | Perceived simulation effectiveness will be assessed using the Modified Simulation Effectiveness Tool (SET-M) in the intervention group. The scale consists of 19 items and four subscales: prebriefing, learning, confidence, and debriefing. Total scores range from 19 to 95, with higher scores indicating a more positive perception of the effectiveness of the simulation-based learning experience. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Contacts
CONTACTŞeyma Erkuş, PhD Student
CONTACTElçin Babaoğlu Gülseven, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
STUDY_DIRECTORElçin Babaoğlu Gülseven, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Uskudar University
Outcome results
None listed