Learning Objective #1: Discuss the use of Pediatric HPS in building collaborative nurse physician relationships

Learning Objective #2: Relate leader empowerment, work and job satisfaction, stress, group collaboration and group cohesion to the coding scenarios

---

Leader empowerment (LE), organization work satisfaction (OWS), nursing job satisfaction (NJS), job stress (JS) and collaborative nurse-physician (N-P) relationships are important components of ANCC “Forces of Magnetism”. N-P influenced costs and patient care effectiveness (Knaus, 2001). Human patient simulator (HPS) studies focus on medical residents, anesthesia and nursing students (Rogers, 2001; Schwid, 2002). Bruce (2003) evaluated ARNP's knowledge and clinical performance. HPS benefits- increased learning, retention and confidence outweighed difficulties of expense and time; providing state-of-art interactive learning knowledge, critical thinking, communication and teamwork skills (Morton, 2004; Nehring & Lashley, 2004). No documentation if collaborative NP teams lead to effective outcomes. Purpose: to assess LE, ORW, NJS, Stress and NP collaboration using Pediatric HPS “Pam”. Conceptual Framework: King's (1981) time & perception concepts. Methodology: Research #1: What is NP collaboration level using Kramer/Schmalenberg's (2002) NP Scale (KSNPS), NACHRI Group Cohesion (GC), Collaboration & Satisfaction about Care Decisions (CSCD), LE, ORW, NJS and JS instruments. Research #2: What is relationship between instruments and HPS competency? Research design-descriptive, exploratory study. Participants- 18 Teams- 50 nurses and 55 medical residents (3 residents/3 nurses) in 3 “mock code” scenarios videotaped with debriefing sessions. Findings. Mode age (28-32), 48% Hispanic, 62% female. Males had significant higher GC scores (F=4.94; df-1.99, p=.029), significantly higher collaboration & satisfaction with patient care decisions than females (F=8.35, df=1, p.005). KSNPS increased with each scenario. Although teams perceived collaboration, it evolved over time with no significant correlation between KSNPS, GC, CSCD, LE, OWS, NJS, JS and HPS scores. Discussion. 1st scenario residents communicated with each other as did nurses-to-nurses; 2nd nurse/residents communicated, evolving into “working” teams; 3rd team more cohesive, communicated more effectively and genuinely listened to each other, regardless of rank. Conclusions Participants recognized deficiencies, reacted to crisis with additional knowledge, improved assessment and collaboration skills to save “Pam”.