Learning outcomes and cost-utility analysis of hybrid patient and mannequin-based simulation

There is no clear evidence on the relationship between nursing student learning outcomes and the type of simulator used or its cost-effectiveness. Compare nursing student learning outcomes using either the hybrid patient or mannequin and the cost-utility of both simulators. A randomised experimental study with an experimental group (hybrid patient = 99) and a control group (mannequin = 97). A training intervention was carried out for polytrauma patients. Statistically significant differences were found between the simulator used and the performance results for tourniquet (hybrid 5.37 ± 1.33, mannequin 4.95 ± 1.09; p = .008) and spinal board (hybrid 6.18 ± 2.02, mannequin 6.97 ± 20.2; p = .001) application. The cost-utility ratio was estimated to be 3.29 for the hybrid patient and 1.92 for the mannequin. The use of a hybrid patient or mannequin has not been shown to be a determinant of performance outcomes or student perceptions in training interventions in polytrauma patient care. However, as the cost per participant with a mannequin is almost twice as high, the hybrid patient has a better cost-utility ratio. •Comparison of two training interventions on polytrauma with high fidelity simulation•The cost-utility ratio of the hybrid patient is twice that of the manikin.•Perception scores on satisfaction are similar for both simulators.•Perception scores on self-confidence and anxiety are similar for both simulators.