Combining the haptic IV simulator with practical experience on the IV arm may be the best practice for learning IV insertion” McWilliams and Malecha (2017).
Objective: The objective of this review was to compare traditional intravenous (IV) insertion instructional methods with the use of haptic IV simulators.
Design: An integrative research design was used to analyze the current literature.
ReTweet if useful… What is the learning process associated with haptic IV simulator? https://ctt.ec/Q8D22+ @ivteam #ivteam
Data Sources: A search was conducted using key words intravenous (IV) insertion or cannulation or venipuncture and simulation from 2000 to 2015 in the English language. The databases included Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Education Resource Information Center, and Medline.
Review Methods: Whittemore and Knafl’s (2005) strategies were used to critique the articles for themes and similarities.
Results: Comparisons of outcomes between traditional IV instructional methods and the use of haptic IV simulators continue to show various results. Positive results indicate that the use of the haptic IV simulator decreases both band constriction and total procedure time. While students are satisfied with practicing on the haptic simulators, they still desire faculty involvement.
Conclusion: Combining the haptic IV simulator with practical experience on the IV arm may be the best practice for learning IV insertion. Research employing active learning strategies while using a haptic IV simulator during the learning process may reduce cost and faculty time.
McWilliams, L.A. and Malecha, A. (2017) Comparing Intravenous Insertion Instructional Methods with Haptic Simulators. Nursing Research and Practice. January 29th. .
Thank you to our partners for supporting IVTEAM