Claims

Delirium knowledge gains from simulation-based education were sustained over time in repeated-survey and delayed-assessment studies

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In a repeated cross-sectional survey across four time points, correct responses on a delirium knowledge survey rose from 74.5% at baseline to 86.4% at the final time point, a significant improvement. → EL Hussein Mohamed Toufic 2026

Evidence

EL Hussein Mohamed Toufic 2026

EL Hussein Mohamed Toufic, Sheehan Dawson S., Hirst Sandra. (2026). Simulation‐Based Education to Support Nurses' Critical Thinking in Delirium Recognition: A Scoping Review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70640

q2 · i? · review · r2

This repeated cross-sectional survey involved nursing staff on a single 24-bed general medical ward exposed to a three-element delirium prevention programme including monthly 1-h high-fidelity simulation with debrief, online modules and expert-facilitated case discussions. Correct responses "increased over time from 74.5% (T0) to 86.4% (T3), with a significant T0 → T3 improvement"; simulation participation was moderate at 48% versus 83% for online modules.

"Correct responses on the delirium knowledge survey increased over time from 74.5% (T0) to 86.4% (T3), with a significant T0 → T3 improvement"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.