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

被引:97
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
    Abdulghani, Hamza Mohammad
    Shaik, Shaffi Ahamed
    Khamis, Nehal
    Al-Drees, Abdulmajeed Abdulrahman
    Irshad, Mohammad
    Khalil, Mahmoud Salah
    Alhaqwi, Ali Ibrahim
    Isnani, Arthur
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2014, 36 : S24 - S29
  • [2] An Updated Review of Published Simulation Evaluation Instruments
    Adamson, Katie Anne
    Kardong-Edgren, Suzan
    Willhaus, Janet
    [J]. 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
    Boet, Sylvain
    Bould, M. Dylan
    Bruppacher, Heinz R.
    Desjardins, Francois
    Chandra, Deven B.
    Naik, Viren N.
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2011, 39 (06) : 1377 - 1381
  • [8] Cognitive versus technical debriefing after simulation training
    Bond, WF
    Deitrick, LM
    Eberhardt, M
    Barr, GC
    Kane, BG
    Worrilow, CC
    Arnold, DC
    Croskerry, P
    [J]. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2006, 13 (03) : 276 - 283
  • [9] A review for clinical outcomes research: hypothesis generation, data strategy, and hypothesis-driven statistical analysis
    Chang, David C.
    Talamini, Mark A.
    [J]. 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