Kirkpatrick's Evaluation of Simulation and Debriefing in Health Care Education: A Systematic Review

被引:105
作者
Johnston, Sandra [1 ]
Coyer, Fiona Maree [2 ]
Nash, Robyn [2 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Nursing, Clin Partnerships, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Nursing, Nursing, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION; SELF-CONFIDENCE; VIDEO; SATISFACTION; MANAGEMENT; STUDENTS;
D O I
10.3928/01484834-20180618-03
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Simulation is an integral component of health care education. Research suggests a positive relationship between simulation and learning outcomes. Kirkpatrick's framework is a four-level model based on the premise that learning resulting from training programs can be classified into four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Evaluation of educational impact provides valuable feedback to educators that may assist with development and improvement of teaching methods. Method: This review is based on the PRISMA guidelines for conducting a systematic review. Inclusion criteria included articles (a) written in the English language, (b) published between 2000 and 2016, (c) describing a debriefing intervention after high-fidelity patient simulation, and (d) based in health care. Results: Thirteen studies met criteria for inclusion in the review. Conclusion: Results indicated a paucity of studies at the highest levels of evaluation, indicating an area where future research is needed to assist with the development and improvement of simulation education.
引用
收藏
页码:393 / +
页数:11
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Research methodology workshops evaluation using the Kirkpatrick's model: Translating theory into practice [J].
Abdulghani, Hamza Mohammad ;
Shaik, Shaffi Ahamed ;
Khamis, Nehal ;
Al-Drees, Abdulmajeed Abdulrahman ;
Irshad, Mohammad ;
Khalil, Mahmoud Salah ;
Alhaqwi, Ali Ibrahim ;
Isnani, Arthur .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2014, 36 :S24-S29
[2]   An Updated Review of Published Simulation Evaluation Instruments [J].
Adamson, Katie Anne ;
Kardong-Edgren, Suzan ;
Willhaus, Janet .
CLINICAL SIMULATION IN NURSING, 2013, 9 (09) :E393-E400
[3]  
[Anonymous], SIRC GLOSS
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2020, SIMULATION NURSING E
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2010, INNOVATIVE TEACHING
[6]  
Boet S, 2014, CAN J ANESTH, V61, P571, DOI 10.1007/s12630-014-0143-8
[7]   Looking in the mirror: Self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises [J].
Boet, Sylvain ;
Bould, M. Dylan ;
Bruppacher, Heinz R. ;
Desjardins, Francois ;
Chandra, Deven B. ;
Naik, Viren N. .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2011, 39 (06) :1377-1381
[8]   Cognitive versus technical debriefing after simulation training [J].
Bond, WF ;
Deitrick, LM ;
Eberhardt, M ;
Barr, GC ;
Kane, BG ;
Worrilow, CC ;
Arnold, DC ;
Croskerry, P .
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2006, 13 (03) :276-283
[9]   A review for clinical outcomes research: hypothesis generation, data strategy, and hypothesis-driven statistical analysis [J].
Chang, David C. ;
Talamini, Mark A. .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2011, 25 (07) :2254-2260
[10]  
Chronister C., 2012, Clinical Simulation in Nursing, V8, pe281, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.ECNS.2010.12.005