Helping healthcare teams to debrief effectively: associations of debriefers' actions and participants' reflections during team debriefings

Three-Phase Video-Assisted Multidisciplinary Team Debriefing in High-Fidelity Blast Simulation through the Advocacy and Inquiry Method

BACKGROUND

Video-assisted debriefing (VAD) combined with the advocacy and inquiry (A&I) technique is a tool that allows video playback of selected segments of a simulation, thereby helping the debriefers structure the session. However, no consensus exists on how to optimally perform a team debriefing. The authors demonstrate and describe the methodology of A&I debriefing in an instructional simulated blast scenario and assess the impact of VAD on residents' technical and nontechnical skills.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, the authors performed a study with 50 residents who were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Group 1 (control, or no VAD; n = 25) consisted of residents who received oral debriefing by 1 independent faculty member without the recorded video of the simulation. Group 2 (intervention, or VAD; n = 25) consisted of residents who received VAD from the second independent faculty member. These residents repeated the same simulation scenario 1 week after their debrief. Every resident was assessed on the primary and secondary survey, as well as the nontechnical skills, based on the integrated skills score.

RESULTS

The VAD group presented significantly higher values for the integrated skills score ( P < 0.001) compared with the no-VAD group.

CONCLUSIONS

This demonstration of 3-phase VAD emphasizes important aspects of coherent simulation-based training: psychologic safety, A&I, reflection, cognitive frames, prebrief, main debrief, summary, and translation of new discoveries to real-life patient care. The unique audiovisual aspect of the VAD enhanced residents' performance in simulation.

Effective debriefings in the clinical setting: a pilot study to test the impact of an evidence based debriefing app on anesthesia care providers' performance

Background

Debriefing enhances team learning, performance, and patient safety. Despite its benefits, it's underused. To address this, we developed an evidence-based debriefing app.

Methods

This pilot study, conducted at a Swiss hospital, evaluated team performance during two anesthesia inductions using the Team Performance Scale (TPS). Following the first induction, teams engaged with the Zurich Debriefing App, with debriefing sessions meticulously recorded for subsequent evaluation. To mitigate bias, raters underwent comprehensive TPS training. The debriefings were analyzed through the DE-CODE framework. We utilized paired t-tests to examine performance improvements and linear regressions to assess the impact of reflective statements on performance, moderated by psychological safety.

Results

Team performance significantly improved from the first to the second induction (t (9) = -2.512, p = 0.033). Senior physicians' (n = 8) reflective statements predicted post-assessment TPS scores (R 2 = 0.732, p = 0.061), while consultants (n = 7) and nurse anesthetists (n = 10) did not. Interaction analysis revealed no moderation effects, but a main effect indicated the significance of senior physicians' reflective statements.

Conclusion

This pilot study confirms the efficacy of the evidence-based debriefing app in enhancing anesthesia team performance. Senior physicians' reflective statements positively influenced performance; however, no moderation effects were observed. The study highlights the potential of debriefing apps to streamline and enhance team debriefing processes, with significant implications for improving clinical practice and patient safety. Further research is needed to validate these findings on a larger scale and optimize the integration of debriefing into routine clinical practice.

Strategies for case-based training with virtual patients: An experimental study of the impact of integrating mental model articulation and self-reflection

Resilient system performance in high-stakes settings, which includes the ability to monitor, respond, anticipate, and learn, can be enhanced for trainees through simulation of realistic scenarios enhanced by augmented reality. Active learning strategies can enhance simulation-based training, particularly the mental model articulation principle where students are prompted to anticipate what will happen next and the reflection principle where students self-assess their performance compared to a gold standard expert model. In this paper, we compared simulation-based training for trauma care with and without active learning strategies during pauses in the simulated action for progressively deteriorating patients. The training was conducted online and real-time without a facilitator, with 42 medical students viewing training materials and then immediately taking an online quiz for three types of trauma cases: hemorrhage, airway obstruction, and tension pneumothorax. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control condition in a between-subjects design. We compared performance in the control and experimental conditions based on: A) the proportion of cues correctly recognized, B) the proportion of accurate diagnoses, C) the proportion of appropriate treatment interventions, and D) verbal briefing quality on a 1-5 scale. We found that the training intervention increased recognition of subtle cues critical for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment interventions; the training did not improve the accuracy of diagnoses or the quality of the verbal briefing. We conclude that incorporating active learning strategies in simulation-based training improved foundational capabilities in detecting subtle cues and intervening to rescue deteriorating patients that can increase the readiness for trainees to contribute to resilient system performance in the high-stakes setting of emergency care in hospitals.

Factors Affecting Nursing Students' Reflective Thinking During Simulation Debriefing

BACKGROUND

Although reflective thinking is regarded as an important learning aspect of debriefing, the factors that can affect reflective thinking during simulation debriefing remain unclear.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify factors affecting reflective thinking during simulation debriefing among nursing students.

METHODS

This study used a cross-sectional descriptive survey design with a convenience sample of 198 Korean nursing students. Participants completed a structured web-based self-administered questionnaire regarding the reflective learning continuum, psychological safety, learner communications skills, and debriefing process design. Multiple regression analyses were used to identify the factors affecting reflective thinking.

RESULTS

Significant factors were debriefing process design, learner communication skills, student-to-student interactions, and instructor-to-student interactions. Psychological safety did not affect the reflective thinking of nursing students.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse educators should design and implement strategies to maintain effective debriefing processes, improve communication skills, and facilitate student-to-student and instructor-to-student interactions to promote reflective thinking during simulation debriefing.

Instructional Video of a Standardized Interprofessional Postsimulation Facilitator-guided Debriefing of a Fatality in Plastic Surgery

Background

Postsimulation facilitator-guided debriefing (PSFGD) is the process of intentional discussion of thoughts, actions, and events that took place during simulation amongst the facilitator(s) and trainees. Despite the significance of delivering high-quality debriefings, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines. Our study aimed to provide an instructional video demonstration of a PSFGD of a fatality.

Methods

Fifty surgical interns participated in a burn simulation scenario in two groups. Group 1 (control, or "no exposure," n = 25) consisted of residents who received oral postsimulation debriefing from an independent faculty member who had no exposure to our instructional video on how to debrief effectively. Group 2 (intervention, or "exposure," n = 25) consisted of interns who were debriefed by the second faculty member who did watch our instructional video before the simulation and learned about "advocacy and inquiry" techniques. The outcome measures were the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare score and the postdebrief multiple-choice question (MCQ) quiz scores to assess debriefers' performance and interns' knowledge consolidation, respectively.

Results

The "exposure" group presented statistically significantly higher values for the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare score (P < 0.001) and MCQ score (P < 0.001) compared with the "no exposure" group.

Conclusions

Debriefers who followed the methodology as demonstrated in our instructional video were considered more competent, and the residents achieved higher MCQ scores. The quality of the debriefing ensures improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Safer practice and better patient outcomes are achieved by developing debriefing programs for educators.

Debriefing Methods for Simulation in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Debriefing is a critical component in most simulation experiences. With the growing number of debriefing concepts, approaches, and tools, we need to understand how to debrief most effectively because there is little empiric evidence to guide us in their use. This systematic review explores the current literature on debriefing in healthcare simulation education to understand the evidence behind practice and clarify gaps in the literature. The PICO question for this review was defined as "In healthcare providers [P], does the use of one debriefing or feedback intervention [I], compared to a different debriefing or feedback intervention [C], improve educational and clinical outcomes [O] in simulation-based education?" We included 70 studies in our final review and found that our current debriefing strategies, frameworks, and techniques are not based on robust empirical evidence. Based on this, we highlight future research needs.

Comparing reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefing in simulation training for paramedic students

BACKGROUND

Simulation in healthcare attempts to create relevant representations of patient encounters. It provides experiential learning, bridging typical classroom activities and clinical practice. This study aims to investigate whether the principle of Peer-Assisted Learning can be used in simulation by letting simulation-experienced paramedic students prepare, deliver, and debrief their own simulations, with minimal faculty assistance. This could be a way to support student learning by being involved in teaching, and it might at the same time optimise the cost-effectiveness of simulation-based training.

METHODS

This observational non-inferiority study compared reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led simulation and debriefing, between scenario types, and compared the number of turns in which students are involved in both settings. Third-year Bachelor in Paramedic Science students' debriefings were filmed and transcribed. The degree of reflection in students' statements was rated according to a modified version of Fleck's analytical framework of reflection levels, assigning scores from lowest (R0 description) to highest (R4 critical reflection). Facilitator-led and student-led debriefings were compared using chi-square tests. Scenarios were also analysed according to type (paediatric emergencies and complex assessments) regardless of who led the simulation.

RESULTS

Ten facilitator-led and 12 student-led debriefings were analysed. Students gave 682 (49%) contributions in the facilitator-led debriefings, and 702 (51%) contributions in student-led debriefings. Comparison of reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefings was respectively: R0-level 32.7% vs 33.8%, R1-level 44.0% vs 44.3%, R2-level 14.7% vs 17.1%, R3-level 0.1% vs 1.3%, and R4-level 0.1% vs 0.1%. There were no statistically significant differences in reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefings (p = 0.178). Comparing the reflection levels between the scenarios on "paediatric emergencies" and "complex assessments", the results were respectively: R0-level 35.4% vs. 31.7%-level, R1-level 45.3% vs. 43.3%-level, R2-level 13.4% vs. 17.8%, R3-level 0.5% vs. 0.9%, and R4-level 0.0% vs. 0.3%. These differences were statistically significant (p = 0.010). No significant differences in engagement were found between debriefings led by a student or a facilitator, when measuring the number of turns in the conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitator-led and student-led debriefings resulted in equivalent reflection levels amongst students. Student-led simulation is potentially a cost-effective supplement to regular simulation within a healthcare degree program. Since complex scenarios provided higher reflection levels than paediatric, scenario design might influence reflection levels.

Twelve tips for the pre-brief to promote psychological safety in simulation-based education

It is recognised that simulation-based education can be stressful, and this can impact negatively on learning. A fundamental aspect of facilitating simulation is creating a safe educational environment. Edmondson's seminal work on creating psychological safety among interpersonal teams has been embraced by the healthcare simulation community. Psychological safety is an underpinning philosophy for creating simulation experiences in which learners can develop within a stimulating and challenging yet supportive social atmosphere. Through careful design and thoughtful delivery, the introductory phase of simulation, the pre-briefing, can effectively prepare learners for simulation, reduce learner anxiety, and promote psychological safety, to enhance learning experiences. These twelve tips provide guidance for conducting a pre-brief and promoting a psychologically safe environment for simulation-based education.

Identification of the barriers and enablers for receiving a speaking up message: a content analysis approach

BACKGROUND

Within healthcare, the barriers and enablers that influence clinicians' ability to speak up are well researched. However, despite the receiver of the message being identified as a key barrier to a speaker voicing a concern, there have been very few receiver-focused studies. As a result, little is known about the barriers and enablers that influence message reception. Understanding these can help inform speaking up training and ultimately enhance patient safety through more effective clinical communication.

OBJECTIVES

To identify enabling or inhibiting factors that influence the receiver's reception and response to a speaking up message, and if the identified barriers and enablers are related to speaker or receiver characteristics.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Twenty-two interdisciplinary simulations were video recorded and transcribed. Simulation participants formed the patient discharge team and were receivers of a speaking up message, delivered by a nurse at the patient's bedside. How the message was delivered (verbose or abrupt wording), was manipulated and counterbalanced across the simulations. Within the post simulation debriefs, barriers and enablers of being a receiver of a message were explored using content analysis.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

This study took place in a large Australian tertiary healthcare setting. Participants were qualified clinicians of varying disciplines and specialties.

RESULTS

A total of 261 barriers and 285 enablers were coded. Results showed that how the message was delivered (differing tone, phases, and manner) influenced what receivers identified as barriers and enablers. Additionally, the receiver's own cognitive processes, such as making positive attributions of the speaker and attempting to build rapport and collegiality, better enabled message reception and response. Receiver behaviour was negatively impacted by listening to fix, rather than understand, and not knowing in the moment how to manage their own reactions and appropriately frame a response.

CONCLUSION

The debriefings identified key barriers and enablers to receiving a speaking up message that differ from those previously identified for senders of the speaking up message. Current speaking up programs are predominately speaker centric. This study identified that both speaker and receiver behaviour influenced message reception. Therefore, training must place equal attention on both the speaker and receiver and be inclusive of experiential conversational rehearsal of both positive and challenging encounters.