• John T Paige, John B Zamjahn, Raquel B Carvalho, Shuang Yang, Qingzhao Yu, Deborah D Garbee, Vladimir J Kiselov, Vadym Rusnak, Laura Bonanno, and Catherine Callan.
• Department of Surgery, LSU Health New Orleans School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA. Electronic address: JPaige@lsuhsc.edu.
• Surgery. 2019 Jun 1; 165 (6): 1069-1074.

BackgroundHigh-fidelity simulation-based training is used increasingly for prelicensure student teams. Such sessions rely on faculty who are able to provide quality prebriefing and debriefing to foster learning among participants. We investigated how well faculty conducted prebriefing and debriefing as part of high-fidelity simulation-based training for interprofessional education.MethodsTwo trained observers independently rated 38 video-recorded sessions of combinations of 4 faculty conducting prebriefings and debriefings of prelicensure student teams after high-fidelity simulation-based training. Assessment was undertaken using the Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing, an 8-item tool using a 5-point Likert scale (1 as minimum and 5 as maximum). Mean scores for each item were calculated. Inter-rater agreement was determined using Cohen's kappa. A one-way between-subjects analysis of variance with post-hoc Tukey's studentized range procedure was conducted to compare the effect of team facilitator grouping on the quality of team performance of each Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing element during a prebriefing or a debriefing. Trend analyses of teams with 4 or more observations were performed using Kendall's Tau coefficient test and linear regression analyses to identify whether teams showed improvement through time. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.ResultsA total of 7 combinations of faculty conducted between 1 to 14 prebriefings or debriefings. In general, faculty combinations performed better during debriefings compared with prebriefings, with only 1 team having 1 mean item score <3.50. Statistically significant differences between faculty combinations in mean item scores was more pronounced during the prebriefings (2 of 3 Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing items rated) than during debriefings (1 of 8 Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing items rated). Effect sizes were strong for all differences. Linear regression analysis revealed a statistically significant change through time for the 3 rated prebriefing items and for 7 of the 8 rated debriefing items.ConclusionInterprofessional faculty combinations in this study tended to have good quality prebriefings and debriefings. The quality of the prebriefings and debriefings can, however, be influenced by the composition of the facilitator teams, most prominently for prebriefings, and team performance does appear to change through time, especially during the debriefing. Future work will focus on whether the quality of prebriefings and debriefings influences learning by trainees.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…