At the School of Nursing, University of the Free State (UFS), the degree programme uses outcomes-based education (OBE), which is a student-centred teaching and learning approach. This approach is aligned to the constructivist principle of making meaning, where students rebuild their knowledge based on new experiences (Rodgers 2007:73). In OBE the aim is that students will gain knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to become lifelong learners and fulfil meaningful professional roles through the integration of theory and practice in real-life situations (Maree & Fraser 2004:4). Emergency care is included in the four-year professional degree programme (hereafter the degree) as a vertical curriculum strand where life-support practices are developed across all four years. The emergency care theme is presented by means of lectures, case studies, practical demonstrations and authentic simulations, and is assessed annually by means of written and practical examinations.

The MCI is simulated in the third year of the degree as one of the main learning strategies in addition to real-life exposure to integrate theory and practice. The first simulation was a taxi accident scene which took place on a busy road next to a male residence on the campus. There were many incidental onlookers such as students and campus personnel. Qualified emergency healthcare providers facilitated the scene. Half of the students simulated victims with injuries and the other half simulated emergency healthcare providers. The students simulating healthcare providers had to act on the scene upon arrival. Apart from the theoretical lecture in class, no guidance was given to the students regarding the MCI.

After this first MCI simulation, the facilitators of the School of Nursing reviewed and improved it annually. The review of the simulation became a more rigorous AR initiative to improve the quality of this trauma-related educational strategy. The paradigm and methodology of this initiative are addressed in the next section.

The population for the study consisted of all the participants in the MCI. The purposive sample consisted of three groups of people, which included all those who took part in the MCI: (1) the third-year nursing students (N = 29), (2) the faculty members involved in the third-year programme (N = 5) and (3) external partners, who comprised paramedics (N = 30), staff members of police force (N = 2), one traffic policeman, fire brigade personnel (N = 5), ambulance services (N = 10), defence force (N = 3) and protection services (N = 2) at the UFS.

Purposive sampling for AR set two took place the following year and also included the three groups of people who took part in the MCI of that year. The three groups were: (1) the third-year nursing students (N = 45), (2) the faculty members involved in the third-year programme (N = 5) and (3) external partners, who comprised paramedics (N = 25), staff members consisting of one police person, one traffic policeman, fire brigade members (N = 4), ambulance services personnel (N = 8), the hospital emergency unit staff (N = 6) and one protection services member at the UFS.

Data was collected by means of multiple sources and was classified according to the taxonomy given by Mills (2007:4, 49), namely, examining, experiencing and enquiring (refer Table 1). Quantitative data were collected from the students by using a questionnaire that served as the primary source. The questionnaire was peer reviewed by faculty members before it was used. Essential content of the questionnaire was identified through a brainstorming session attended by the faculty members (see student questionnaire column in Table 4). At this session, each staff member generated as many ideas as they could about the problem in question. To avoid misinterpretations of the data, open-ended responses as well as responses to set questions were included in the questionnaire. The open-ended responses improved the validity of the data by including the authenticity of the student voice (Botma et al. 2010:134).

Supportive qualitative data was collected from the rest of the population through minutes of meetings, reflective discussions and observation. The supportive data were triangulated with the primary data to improve the validity and rigour (Mertens 2010:298).

The quantitative data gathered were analysed by the faculty members. The data were entered into a spreadsheet, printed and checked. Descriptive statistics, namely frequencies and percentages, were calculated.

The five faculty members applied deductive interpretive reasoning during the analysis of the qualitative data. In accordance with the deductive process (Botma et al. 2010:194), suitable phrases or words that relate to the South African critical cross-field outcomes¹ which seemed to be appropriate to the specific MCI context were searched. Consensus about categorising the data according to these outcomes was reached and a paper trail was kept, thus enhancing rigour.

Trustworthiness or gaining a true understanding of the data was achieved by four strategies (Botma et al. 2010:235). The credibility and dependability of the analysed data were ensured through member checking (with research participants) and peer debriefing (with other researchers) (Mertens 2010:257, 431). The data were described as clearly as possible to enable transferability in other contexts. Confirmability was addressed through triangulation. Data triangulation involved the inclusion of perceptions from all participants to strengthen the interpretation and ensure validity and rigour (Botma et al. 2010:235; Mertens 2010:429).

Ethical clearance was granted for the study by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences (UFS). The principles for ethical practice (axiology) of qualitative research were followed as described by Mertens (2010:16–18) to ensure rigor with regard to privacy, informed consent, confidentiality, honesty, that no harm was done and that ethical standards were maintained. All the students had to take part in the MCI as part of their curriculum. In order to be included in the study they had to agree by means of a written consent to the publication of the research outcomes.

In the next section, the implementation of the step-up model is discussed.

The AR spiral model consists of four phases: planning, acting, observing and reflecting. The step-up model (Figure 1) adapted from the spiral model consists of ascending AR steps, where each step represents an AR set or time period, each of which, in turn, consists of two phases, namely a reflection phase and an action phase (Seale et al. 2005:215).

In the first AR set (Figure 1), the faculty members involved in teaching the third-year students reflected on the simulated MCI and documented plans for new actions to be performed in the following two years. Seale et al. (2005:216) explain that, during the reflection phase of a set (Figure 1, number 4), reflection and planning are the forerunners of the action phase (Figure 1, number 3), where the planned actions will be implemented and data collected.

The selection and preparation of the actions for AR set one took place at the planning point of the step-up model (Figure 1, number 2) and initiated the departure of the action phase (Figure 1, number 3). Observation (the process of data collection, analysis and interpretation), as part of the action phase, took place during and after the MCI and was documented carefully throughout.

Within each step-up AR set, multitudes of intermingled AR cycles occur to signify formative reflection. This is illustrated by using a diagonal line in the form of a spiral (Figure 1, number 5) that cuts through each reflection point (Figure 1, number 1). Perpendicular upward movement of the action phase represents quality improvement and change taking place during the implementation. Seale et al. (2005:215) explain that knowledge production is a result of the processes of reflection and innovative redesigning. The horizontal forward movement of the reflection phase to the right indicates the contribution to scholarly knowledge (Figure 1, number 6).

The goals and complementary actions of the MCI that the AR initiative focused on are represented in Table 2.

The critical cross-field outcomes served as broad themes for the data analysis of all four actions. Table 4 summarises the quantitative results of the 29 student questionnaires jointly, with the qualitative results of all the participants related to all four actions for AR set one.

Student learning was enhanced through structuring the MCI according to the critical cross-field outcomes (action 1). Most students (83%) said they could apply theory to practice reflecting their critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Problem solving was enhanced by the MCI experience, since learning took place whilst victims were prioritised on the disaster scene.

Action two, to promote partnership appreciation, was evident in more than one of the critical outcomes. One of the students indicated that the trained group leader ‘directed what needed to be done’, everyone was ‘put at ease’ and the group leader helped to ‘organise the whole group’. This gratitude towards a paramedic supported the critical outcome of communicating effectively. A study done by Melby (2000:638) on the experiential learning experience of nursing students in emergency-care settings confirms that an appreciation of the skills and abilities of paramedics forms the foundation for enhanced inter-professional collaboration in this setting. It can thus be accepted that the experiences gained by the UFS students regarding collaborative appreciation will also promote their understanding of the critical outcome where they see the health sciences world as part of a set of related systems. The quantitative data supported this aspect, since a positive attitude change towards role-players was experienced by 55% of the students.

The continuous reflective debriefing to improve student coping mechanisms (action 3) is represented by the intermingled AR cycles on the diagonal line of the model (Figure 1, number 5) referred to as ‘formative reflection’ by Seale et al. (2005:216). Seale et al. (2005:216) argue that reflection processes contribute to both the quality improvement of the project involved and to knowledge production (Figure 1, number 6). A number of students experienced the debriefing as empowering and felt that they had learnt what had gone wrong and what had gone right (Table 4). During the debriefing and reflection sessions with the students, reflective recommendations for improvement were made (Table 5). These recommendations were implemented during AR set two. The effect of these recommendations as seen by the facilitators is documented in Table 5. Students suggested that mock injuries (moulage) would be more realistic. Upon reflection, the facilitators felt that the authenticity of the MCI improved and resulted in quality. Additional information sessions, with real-life scenarios, were arranged for the students before the next MCI. The facilitators agreed that the application and integration of knowledge improved, which may result in critical thinking and deep learning.

Working in smaller groups to increase student exposure, each with a paramedic group leader (action 4), exposed more students to the MCI activity. Students’ comments on effective communication such as the delegation of tasks and the coordination of actions testify to the value of the leader in the smaller groups (Table 4). It is noteworthy to point out that many of the problems faced in disasters are not caused by shortcomings in medical competence but stem from failures in leadership and management (Alexander, Bandiera & Mazurik 2005:40). As a recommendation, the critical cross-field outcome to manage self is an important aspect to focus on in future incidents, as the students realised that they should stay focused, be patient and not panic (Table 4).

The full set of results related to AR set two will not be discussed here. The focus of this set was on the trauma unit in the hospital setting. Mention will be made only of the results of the additional questions (Table 6). As shown in Table 6, 40% of the students found the briefing before the MCI helpful. The value of a trauma nurse is referred to by one of the students, who described their ability to ‘act fast and thoroughly so that lives can be saved’. The briefing before the MCI promoted the managing of self (Table 6). Students commented on aspects such as confidence, and an ability to prioritise and act fast.

Other references to the group leader’s characteristics were expressed as ‘guidance’, ‘instruction’ and ‘responsibility’. The added role-players (trauma nurse and trauma doctor) were described as ‘organised’ and ‘capable’. Uys and Gwele (2005:218) state that collaboration from various professions provides rich learning experiences. In this case, the students saw how the individual activities of the various role-players came together to serve the greater purpose and thus promote full understanding.