Brick in the wall? Linking quality of debriefing to participant learning in team training of interprofessional students

被引:2
作者
Paige, John T. [1 ]
Garbee, Deborah D. [2 ]
Yu, Qingzhao [3 ]
Zahmjahn, John [4 ]
de Carvalho, Raquel Baroni [5 ]
Zhu, Lin [6 ]
Rusnak, Vadym [7 ]
Kiselov, Vladimir J.
机构
[1] LSU Hlth New Orleans Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Med, Dept Surg, New Orleans, LA USA
[2] LSU Hlth New Orleans Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Nursing, New Orleans, LA USA
[3] LSU Hlth New Orleans Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Publ Hlth, New Orleans, LA USA
[4] LSU Hlth New Orleans Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Allied Hlth Profess, New Orleans, LA USA
[5] Univ Fed Espirito Santo, Sch Dent, Vitoria, ES, Brazil
[6] Bristol Myers Squibb Co, New York, NY 10154 USA
[7] Tulane Univ, Sch Med, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Med, 1430 Tulane Ave, New Orleans, LA 70112 USA
来源
BMJ SIMULATION & TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING | 2021年 / 7卷 / 05期
关键词
HIGH-FIDELITY; HEALTH-CARE; SIMULATION; EDUCATION; COMMUNICATION; INTERVENTIONS; PERFORMANCE; ATTITUDES;
D O I
10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000685
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The evidence for the conventional wisdom that debriefing quality determines the effectiveness of learning in simulation-based training is lacking. We investigated whether the quality of debriefing in using simulation-based training in team training correlated with the degree of learning of participants. Methods Forty-two teams of medical and undergraduate nursing students participated in simulation-based training sessions using a two-scenario format with after-action debriefing. Observers rated team performance with an 11-item Teamwork Assessment Scales (TAS) instrument (three subscales, team-based behaviours (5-items), shared mental model (3-items), adaptive communication and response (3-items)). Two independent, blinded raters evaluated video-recorded facilitator team prebriefs and debriefs using the Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) 8-item tool. Descriptive statistics were calculated, t-test comparisons made and multiple linear regression and univariate analysis used to compare OSAD item scores and changes in TAS scores. Results Statistically significant improvements in all three TAS subscales occurred from scenario 1 to 2. Seven faculty teams taught learners with all scores >= 3.0 (except two) for prebriefs and all scores >= 3.5 (except one) for debriefs (OSAD rating 1=done poorly to 5=done well). Linear regression analysis revealed a single statistically significant correlation between debrief engagement and adaptive communication and response score without significance on univariate analysis. Conclusions Quality of debriefing does not seem to increase the degree of learning in interprofessional education using simulation-based training of prelicensure student teams. Such a finding may be due to the relatively high quality of the prebrief and debrief of the faculty teams involved in the training.
引用
收藏
页码:360 / 365
页数:6
相关论文
共 52 条
  • [1] Closed-Loop Communication Improves Task Completion in Pediatric Trauma Resuscitation
    Abd El-Shafy, Ibrahim
    Delgado, Jennifer
    Akerman, Meredith
    Bullaro, Francesca
    Christopherson, Nathan A. M.
    Prince, Jose M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL EDUCATION, 2018, 75 (01) : 58 - 64
  • [2] Safety attitudes in hospital emergency departments: a systematic review
    Alzahrani, Naif
    Jones, Russell
    Rizwan, Amir
    Abdel-Latif, Mohamed E.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2019, 32 (07) : 1042 - 1054
  • [3] Teamwork education improves trauma team performance in undergraduate health professional students
    Baker, Valerie O'Toole
    Cuzzola, Ronald
    Knox, Carolyn
    Liotta, Cynthia
    Cornfield, Charles S.
    Tarkowski, Robert D.
    Masters, Carolynn
    McCarthy, Michael
    Sturdivant, Suzanne
    Carlson, Jestin N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2015, 12
  • [4] Are role perceptions of residents and nurses translated into action?
    Bochatay, Naike
    Muller-Juge, Virginie
    Scherer, Fabienne
    Cottin, Guillemette
    Cullati, Stephane
    Blondon, Katherine S.
    Hudelson, Patricia
    Maitre, Fabienne
    Vu, Nu V.
    Savoldelli, Georges L.
    Nendaz, Mathieu R.
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2017, 17
  • [5] The basis of clinical tribalism, hierarchy and stereotyping: a laboratory-controlled teamwork experiment
    Braithwaite, Jeffrey
    Clay-Williams, Robyn
    Vecellio, Elia
    Marks, Danielle
    Hooper, Tamara
    Westbrook, Mary
    Westbrook, Johanna
    Blakely, Brette
    Ludlow, Kristiana
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (07):
  • [6] Chauvin SW., 2012, SIMULATION RADIOLOGY
  • [7] Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education Lessons for Faculty Development
    Cheng, Adam
    Morse, Kate J.
    Rudolph, Jenny
    Arab, Abeer A.
    Runnacles, Jane
    Eppich, Walter
    [J]. SIMULATION IN HEALTHCARE-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR SIMULATION IN HEALTHCARE, 2016, 11 (01): : 32 - 40
  • [8] The effectiveness of crisis resource management and team debriefing in resuscitation education of nursing students: A randomised controlled trial
    Coppens, Imgard
    Verhaeghe, Sofie
    Van Hecke, Ann
    Beeckman, Dimitri
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2018, 27 (1-2) : 77 - 85
  • [9] Operative team communication during simulated emergencies: Too busy to respond?
    Davis, W. Austin
    Jones, Seth
    Crowell-Kuhnberg, Adrianna M.
    O'Keeffe, Dara
    Boyle, Kelly M.
    Klainer, Suzanne B.
    Smink, Douglas S.
    Yule, Steven
    [J]. SURGERY, 2017, 161 (05) : 1348 - 1356
  • [10] Standards of Best Practice: Simulation Standard VI: The Debriefing Process
    Decker, Sharon
    Fey, Mary
    Sideras, Stephanie
    Caballero, Sandra
    Rockstraw, Leland
    Boese, Teri
    Franklin, Ashley E.
    Gloe, Donna
    Lioce, Lori
    Sando, Carol R.
    Meakim, Colleen
    Borum, Jimmie C.
    [J]. CLINICAL SIMULATION IN NURSING, 2013, 9 (06) : S26 - S29