Back to Search Start Over

Frameworks and quality measures used for debriefing in team-based simulation: a systematic review.

Authors :
Endacott R
Gale T
O'Connor A
Dix S
Source :
BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning [BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn] 2018 Aug 13; Vol. 5 (2), pp. 61-72. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Aug 13 (Print Publication: 2019).
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

Objectives: The skill of the debriefer is known to be the strongest independent predictor of the quality of simulation encounters yet educators feel underprepared for this role. The aim of this review was to identify frameworks used for debriefing team-based simulations and measures used to assess debriefing quality.<br />Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, MedLine and Embase databases for simulation studies that evaluated a debriefing framework. Two reviewers evaluated study quality and retrieved information regarding study methods, debriefing framework, outcome measures and debriefing quality.<br />Results: A total of 676 papers published between January 2003 and December 2017 were identified using the search protocol. Following screening of abstracts, 37 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 26 studies met inclusion criteria for quality appraisal and 18 achieved a sufficiently high-quality score for inclusion in the evidence synthesis. A debriefing framework was used in all studies, mostly tailored to the study. Impact of the debrief was measured using satisfaction surveys (n=11) and/or participant performance (n=18). Three themes emerged from the data synthesis: selection and training of facilitators, debrief model and debrief assessment. There was little commonality across studies in terms of participants, experience of faculty and measures used.<br />Conclusions: A range of debriefing frameworks were used in these studies. Some key aspects of debrief for team-based simulation, such as facilitator training, the inclusion of a reaction phase and the impact of learner characteristics on debrief outcomes, have no or limited evidence and provide opportunities for future research particularly with interprofessional groups.<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.<br /> (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2056-6697
Volume :
5
Issue :
2
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning
Accession number :
35519834
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2017-000297