"A debriefer must be neutral" and other debriefing myths: a systemic inquiry-based qualitative study of taken-for-granted beliefs about clinical post-event debriefing

A Scoping Review of Interprofessional Simulation-Based Team Training Programs

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Interprofessional simulation-based team training (ISBTT) is promoted as a strategy to improve collaboration in healthcare, and the literature documents benefits on teamwork and patient safety. Teamwork training in healthcare is traditionally grounded in crisis resource management (CRM), but it is less clear whether ISBTT programs explicitly take the interprofessional context into account, with complex team dynamics related to hierarchy and power. This scoping review examined key aspects of published ISBTT programs including (1) underlying theoretical frameworks, (2) design features that support interprofessional learning, and (3) reported behavioral outcomes. Of 4854 titles identified, 58 articles met inclusion criteria. Most programs were based on CRM and related frameworks and measured CRM outcomes. Only 12 articles framed ISBTT as interprofessional education and none measured all interprofessional competencies. The ISBTT programs may be augmented by integrating theoretical concepts related to power and intergroup relations in their design to empower participants to navigate complex interprofessional dynamics.

Effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing versus oral debriefing in simulation-based interdisciplinary health professions education: A randomized trial

AIM

We aimed to compare the debriefing experience, simulation assessment, reflection, anxiety and simulation satisfaction of using oral debriefing versus video-assisted debriefing after a simulated clinical session in an interdisciplinary cohort of health sciences students.

BACKGROUND

Debriefing is a reflective process that takes place after a clinical simulation and that can be performed either in a traditional way (oral) or using video-assisted debriefing.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 143 health sciences students (35.7% male, 61.5% female).

METHODS

The simulation scenario was designed to evaluate the procedure for donning and doffing personal protective equipment. Differences in debriefing experience, simulation assessment, reflection, anxiety and satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Regarding debriefing experience, significant differences were observed for the category "learning" (34.9 (6.13) vs. 36.7 (3.89); p = 0.039). For simulation assessment, significantly higher scores for all categories were identified in video-assisted debriefing compared with oral debriefing (p<0.001). There were also significant differences between the oral debriefing versus video-assisted debriefing for the overall score of reflection ability (86.97 (10.55) vs. 90.74 (9.67); p=0.028) as well as for the category "reflective communication" (24.72 (3.77) vs 26.04 (4.07); p=0.047). Perceived satisfaction was significantly higher in the video-assisted debriefing group compared with oral debriefing group (p <0.001). For anxiety, no significant differences were observed between debriefing groups.

CONCLUSION

Video-assisted debriefing after a simulated clinical session improves debriefing experience, simulation assessment, reflection and simulation satisfaction, but does not increase anxiety compared with oral debriefing among health sciences students.

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.

Practice of debriefing of critical events: a survey-based cross-sectional study of Portuguese anesthesiologists

Debriefing is an essential procedure for identifying medical errors, improving communication, reviewing team performance, and providing emotional support after a critical event. This study aimed to describe the current practice and limitations of debriefing and gauge opinions on the best timing, effectiveness, need for training, use of established format, and expected goals of debriefing among Portuguese anesthesiologists.

Methods

We performed a national cross-sectional online survey exploring the practice of anesthesiologists' debriefing practice after critical events in Portuguese hospitals. The questionnaire was distributed using a snowball sampling technique from July to September 2021. Data were descriptively and comparatively analyzed.

Results

We had replies from 186 anesthesiologists (11.3% of the Portuguese pool). Acute respiratory event was the most reported type of critical event (96%). Debriefing occurred rarely or never in 53% of cases, 59% of respondents needed more training in debriefing, and only 4% reported having specific tools in their institutions to carry it out. There was no statistical association between having a debriefing protocol and the occurrence of critical events (P=.474) or having trained personnel (P=.95). The existence of protocols was associated with lower frequencies of debriefing (P=.017).

Conclusions

Portuguese anesthesiologists know that debriefing is an essential process that increases patient safety, but among those surveyed, there is a need for an adequate debriefing culture or practice.

Trial registration

Research registry 7741 (https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home).

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

BACKGROUND

Debriefings help teams learn quickly and treat patients safely. However, many clinicians and educators report to struggle with leading debriefings. Little empirical knowledge on optimal debriefing processes is available. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential of specific types of debriefer communication to trigger participants' reflection in debriefings.

METHODS

In this prospective observational, microanalytic interaction analysis study, we observed clinicians while they participated in healthcare team debriefings following three high-risk anaesthetic scenarios during simulation-based team training. Using the video-recorded debriefings and INTERACT coding software, we applied timed, event-based coding with DE-CODE, a coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions. We used lag sequential analysis to explore the relationship between what debriefers and participants said. We hypothesised that combining advocacy (ie, stating an observation followed by an opinion) with an open-ended question would be associated with participants' verbalisation of a mental model as a particular form of reflection.

RESULTS

The 50 debriefings with overall 114 participants had a mean duration of 49.35 min (SD=8.89 min) and included 18 486 behavioural transitions. We detected significant behavioural linkages from debriefers' observation to debriefers' opinion (z=9.85, p<0.001), from opinion to debriefers' open-ended question (z=9.52, p<0.001) and from open-ended question to participants' mental model (z=7.41, p<0.001), supporting our hypothesis. Furthermore, participants shared mental models after debriefers paraphrased their statements and asked specific questions but not after debriefers appreciated their actions without asking any follow-up questions. Participants also triggered reflection among themselves, particularly by sharing personal anecdotes.

CONCLUSION

When debriefers pair their observations and opinions with open-ended questions, paraphrase participants' statements and ask specific questions, they help participants reflect during debriefings.

“Debriefing and Organizational Lessons Learned” (DOLL): A Qualitative Study to Develop a Classification Framework for Reporting Clinical Debriefing Results

Background

The COVID-19 crisis has radically affected our healthcare institutions. Debriefings in clinical settings provide a time for the clinicians to reflect on the successes (pluses) and difficulties (deltas) encountered. Debriefings tend to be well-received if included in the broader management of the unit. The goal of this study was to develop a framework to categorize these debriefings and to assess its worthiness.

Methods

A qualitative approach based on a grounded theory research method was adopted resulting in the “Debriefing and Organizational Lessons Learned” (DOLL) framework. Debriefings were conducted within two Emergency Departments of a Belgian University Hospital during an 8-week period. In the first step, three researchers used debriefing transcripts to inductively develop a tentative framework. During the second step, these three researchers conducted independent categorizations of the debriefings using the developed framework. In step 3, the team analyzed the data to understand the utility of the framework. Chi-square was conducted to examine the associations between the item types (pluses and deltas) and the framework's dimensions.

Results

The DOLL is composed of seven dimensions and 13 subdimensions. Applied to 163 debriefings, the model identified 339 items, including 97 pluses and 242 deltas. Results revealed that there was an association between the frequency of pluses and deltas and the dimensions (p &lt; 0.001). The deltas were mainly related to the work environment (equipment and maintenance) (p &lt; 0.001) while the pluses identified tended to be related to the organization of the unit (communication and roles) (p &lt; 0.001). With leadership's support and subsequent actions, clinicians were more enthusiastic about participating and the researchers anecdotally detected a switch toward a more positive organizational learning approach.

Conclusion

The framework increases the potential value of clinical debriefings because it organizes results into actionable areas. Indeed, leadership found the DOLL to be a useful management tool. Further research is needed to investigate how DOLL may work in non-crisis circumstances and further apply the DOLL into incident reporting and risk management process of the unit.

Review DebrIeF: a collaborative distributed leadership approach to "hot debrief" after cardiac arrest in the emergency department - a quality improvement project

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to re-conceptualise the hot debrief process after cardiac arrest as a collaborative and distributed process across the multi-disciplinary team. There are multiple benefits to hot debriefs but there are also barriers to its implementation. Facilitating the hot debrief discussion usually falls within the remit of the physician; however, the American Heart Association suggests "a facilitator, typically a health-care professional, leads a discussion focused on identifying ways to improve performance". Empowering nurses through a distributed leadership approach supports the wider health-care team involvement and facilitation of the hot debrief process, while reducing the cognitive burden of the lead physician.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A mixed-method approach was taken to evaluate the experiences of staff in the Emergency Department (ED) to identify their experiences of hot debrief after cardiac arrest. There had been some staff dissatisfaction with the process with reports of negative experiences of unresolved issues after cardiac arrest. An audit identified zero hot debriefs occurring in 2019. A quality Improvement project (Model for Healthcare Improvement) used four plan do study act cycles from March 2020 to September 2021, using two questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to engage the team in the design and implementation of a hot debrief tool, using a distributed leadership approach.

FINDINGS

The first survey (n = 78) provided a consensus to develop a hot debrief in the ED (84% in the ED; 85% in intensive care unit (ICU); and 92% from Acute Medicine). Three months after implementation of the hot debrief tool, 5 out of 12 cardiac arrests had a hot debrief, an increase of 42% in hot debriefs from a baseline of 0%. The hot debrief started to become embedded in the ED; however, six months on, there were still inconsistencies with implementation and barriers remained. Findings from the second survey (n = 58) suggest that doctors may not be convinced of the benefits of the hot debrief process, particularly its benefits to improve team performance and nurses appear more invested in hot debriefs when compared to doctors.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

There are existing hot debrief tools; for example, STOP 5 and Take STOCK; however, creating a specific tool with QI methods, tailored to the specific ED context, is likely to produce higher levels of multi-disciplinary team engagement and result in distributed roles and responsibilities. Change is accepted when people are involved in the decisions that affect them and when they have the opportunity to influence that change. This approach is more likely to be achieved through distributed leadership rather than from more traditional top-down hierarchical leadership approaches.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to integrate Royal College Quality Improvement requirements with a collaborative and distributed medical leadership approach, to steer a change project in the implementation of a hot debrief in the ED. EDs need to create a continuous quality improvement culture to support this integration of leadership and QI methods combined, to drive and sustain successful change in distributed leadership to support the implementation of clinical protocols across the multi-disciplinary team in the ED.