Learning Objective #1: Identify a "new road" in research and educational and clinical leadership using HPS

Learning Objective #2: Apply HPS to nurse-physician collaboration, satisfaction, and competency

---

Nurse-physician (N-P) relationships are important component of ANCC Magnet. N-P influenced costs and patient care effectiveness in AACN (Knaus, 2001). Human patient simulator (HPS) studies focus on medical residents, anesthesia and nursing students (Rogers, 2001; Schwid, 2002). Bruce (2003) evaluated ARNP's on knowledge and clinical performance. HPS benefits- increased learning, retention and confidence outweighed expense and time (Morton & Rowne, 2004). HPS provided state-of-art interactive learning knowledge, critical thinking, communication and teamwork (Nehring & Lashley, 2004). Little documentation if collaborative NP teams lead to effective outcomes. Purpose: Assess NP collaboration using HPS “Pediatric Patient Pam”. Conceptual Framework: King's (1981) time/perception concepts. Methodology: Research #1: What is NP collaboration level using Kramer/Schmalenberg's (2002) NP Likert 1-5 Scale (KSNPS), NACHRI Group Cohesion 1-7 (GC) and Collaboration & Satisfaction about Care Decisions 1-7(CSCD) instruments. Research #2: What is relationship between KSNPS, GC, CSCD and HPS competency? Research design-descriptive, exploratory study. Results: 18 teams- 48 nurses and 54 medical residents at SE children's hospital. “Teams” 3 residents/3 nurses in 3 “mock code” scenarios. Scenarios videotaped; debriefing sessions. Findings. Mode age (28-32), 48% Hispanic, 62% female. GC Productivity & Efficiency-average; Morale & Belongingness above average; Personal feelings-“like very much”; Working together-“enjoy it.”. CSCD “agree very much” indicating high collaboration/satisfaction levels. KSNPS level increased per scenario. 1st scenario category neutral (4); 2nd student-teacher (3); 3rd Collaboration (2). Although teams PERCEIVED collaboration, it evolved over TIME with no significant correlation between KSNPS, GC, CSCD & HPS scores. Males-higher GC and CSCD scores than females (F=4.94, p=0.29; F=8.35, p=.005) Discussion: 1st scenario residents communicated with each other; nurses-to-nurses; 2nd nurse/residents communicated, evolving into “working” team; 3rd team more cohesive, communicated more effectively and genuinely listened to each other, regardless of rank. Conclusions: Participants responded during "coding" with improved knowledge, assessment and collaboration, saving “Patient Pam”.