{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036139066788655076, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01555352241537054, 'mean_word_length': 5.413489736070381, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
High-fidelity manikin-based simulation: A study of implications for interprofessional healthcare practitioner education at the associate degree level of study

Healthcare practitioner training programs, specifically at the associate degree level of study, have historically focused practitioner training efforts on discipline-specific programming and curricula. However, these institutions have now begun to examine the utility and efficacy of incorporating interprofessional experiences into their programs. One of the current pedagogical approaches being investigated is the use of high-fidelity manikin-based simulation in the training of their healthcare students. This study examined the use of interprofessional high-fidelity versus low-fidelity simulation within associate degree-granting institutions and examined potential differences in self-efficacy and learning outcomes of participants incorporating a preand post-assessment. A convenience sample of 75 students participated in this study, which included associate degree-seeking nursing students (n = 36) and associate degree-seeking respiratory care students (n = 39). Participants were divided into two groups: a high-fidelity group (n = 52) and a lowfidelity group (n = 23). Each group was composed of both nursing and respiratory care students. A subsequent assessment of pre-intervention and post-intervention self-efficacy and learning outcomes was also performed that examined students by course of study, identified as either nursing students or respiratory care students. Differences in self-efficacy between the high-and low-fidelity groups were not significant on pre-assessment or post-assessment, p = .529 and p = .246. Additionally, differences between iv nursing and respiratory care students were not significant on pre-assessment or postassessment, p = .079 and p = .779 respectively. Differences in perceived learning outcomes between the high-and low-fidelity groups were not significant on pre-assessment or post-assessment, p = .747 and p = .219. Additionally, differences between nursing and respiratory care students were not significant on pre or postassessment, p = .408 and p = .611 respectively.