Agri Ibrahim Cecen University Faculty of Health Sciences
AĞRI, Merkez, 04100, Turkey (Türkiye)
NCT Number: NCT07367906
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.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
AĞRI, Merkez, 04100, Turkey (Türkiye)
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 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 the principal endpoint at T3. 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 an 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 EMA items.
After completion of the quantitative follow-up, 15 intervention participants were selected using maximum-variation sampling across response profile, engagement, sex, age, digital readiness, and placement type. Semi-structured interviews explored clinical cue recognition, application under pressure, escalation and speaking up, delivery conditions, and negative or disconfirming experiences. Quantitative estimates, weekly EMA 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. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Unintended effects and access burdens were solicited through weekly EMA prompts and at T3.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
A structured, mobile-optimized digital microlearning program delivered asynchronously over seven consecutive days. Participants completed one scenario-based module per day, lasting approximately 3-5 minutes. Each module included a surgical patient-safety scenario, a pause to identify the risk, a forced-choice retrieval question, corrective feedback, and a cue-action takeaway. Content covered patient identification, medication safety, documentation omissions, deterioration cues, falls and other safety risks, prioritization, escalation, and clinical decision-making under stress.
Time frame: Baseline before the program (T0), immediately after completion of the seven-day intervention (T1), end of the first week of surgical clinical practice (T2), and end of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice (T3; principal endpoint).
Clinical error recognition was assessed using an expert-reviewed, scenario-based performance test containing 15 retained surgical patient-safety scenarios. Scenarios covered patient identification, medication safety, documentation, deterioration, falls, and escalation. Each scenario was scored 1 for correct identification of the safety error and 0 for an incorrect or absent identification. The total score was converted to a 0-100 scale using (number correct/15) x 100, with higher scores indicating better clinical error recognition. Alternate assessment forms used clinical cues and action sequences distinct from the intervention scenarios. The principal endpoint was performance at T3; T0, T1, and T2 measurements supported assessment of the outcome trajectory.
Time frame: Baseline before the program (T0), immediately after completion of the seven-day intervention (T1), end of the first week of surgical clinical practice (T2), and end of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice (T3).
Clinical decision-making under stress was assessed using scenario-based evaluations that required participants to recognize, prioritize, and respond to patient-safety problems in stressful surgical clinical situations. Scores were converted to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating better decision-making performance under stress.
Time frame: Baseline before the program (T0), immediately after completion of the seven-day intervention (T1), end of the first week of surgical clinical practice (T2), and end of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice (T3).
Patient-safety awareness was assessed using the Patient Safety Awareness Questionnaire, which evaluates understanding of patient-safety principles, recognition of safety risks, and safe practices relevant to surgical care. Scores were converted to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater patient-safety awareness.
Time frame: Baseline before the program (T0), immediately after completion of the seven-day intervention (T1), end of the first week of surgical clinical practice (T2), and end of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice (T3).
Perceived readiness for surgical clinical practice was assessed using the 12-item Clinical Placement Readiness Scale. Item responses were transformed to a 0-100 score for analysis, with higher scores indicating greater perceived readiness for clinical practice.
Time frame: Baseline before the program (T0), immediately after completion of the seven-day intervention (T1), end of the first week of surgical clinical practice (T2), and end of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice (T3).
Clinical self-confidence was assessed using a structured self-confidence measure addressing preparedness and the performance of patient-safety actions within supervised surgical clinical practice. Scores were converted to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater clinical self-confidence.
Time frame: Weekly during surgical clinical practice, weeks 1 through 7.
Safety-oriented behavioral transfer during surgical clinical practice was assessed using one ecological momentary assessment prompt at the end of each scheduled clinical practice day. The index comprised three binary actions: noticing a patient-safety risk, making an appropriate response, and escalating or discussing the concern with a supervisor. The index was calculated as the mean of the three binary actions multiplied by 100, producing a score from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate stronger safety-oriented behavioral transfer. EMA confidence, stress, reflective depth, and the contemporaneous note were separate contextual items and were not included in the index.
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the seven-day intervention (T1).
Acceptability was assessed in the intervention group using a post-intervention questionnaire covering satisfaction, perceived usefulness, usability, and relevance to surgical clinical practice. The total score ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater acceptability and perceived usefulness.
Time frame: End of the seventh week of surgical clinical practice (T3).
Objective transfer at T3 was assessed using three independently administered performance tasks: an Objective Structured Clinical Examination safety station, a transfer vignette containing scenarios not used in the intervention, and a standardized escalation task. Each component was z-standardized across the full randomized sample and assigned equal weight. The mean of the three standardized components was transformed as 50 + 10 x mean(z). Higher scores indicate better objective transfer of patient-safety learning. Supervisor ratings were not included in this composite.
Time frame: Throughout the seven-day intervention and summarized immediately after intervention completion (T1).
Intervention fidelity was assessed from platform-recorded module completion (0-7 modules), completion percentage (0-100%), total time on task in minutes, retrieval-question accuracy (0-100%), proportion of corrective feedback viewed (0-100%), reminder-opening percentage (0-100%), and platform uptime (0-100%). These measures described exposure and delivery fidelity and were not interpreted as clinical outcomes.
Time frame: Weekly during surgical clinical practice, weeks 1 through 7, and at the end of the seventh clinical week (T3).
Participants were asked about unintended effects and access burdens, including notification fatigue, temporary pre-placement anxiety, technical access frustration, additional stress, and data or connectivity barriers. Reports were categorized by type, severity, relatedness, action taken, resolution, and intervention discontinuation.
Agri Ibrahim Cecen University
Other
Digital Microlearning for Patient-Safety Readiness Before Surgical Clinical Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Ecological Momentary Assessment and Mixed-Methods Integration
Acronym: DigiM-2026
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT02401711
Educational Safety Curriculum, Medical Education
View Trial DetailsNCT07570134
Interprofessional Relations, Medical Education
Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
View Trial DetailsNCT07714655
Clinical Competence, History Taking
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
View Trial DetailsNCT07743658
Cognition Disorders, Cognitive Dysfunction
Monrovia, Montserrado County, Liberia
View Trial Details