• J Surg Educ · Nov 2018

    Does a Written Tool to Guide Structured Debriefing Improve Discourse? Implications for Interprofessional Team Simulation.

    • Ryan Thompson, Sarah Sullivan, Krystle Campbell, Ingie Osman, Brianna Statz, and Hee Soo Jung.
    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: RThompson@medicine.wisc.edu.
    • J Surg Educ. 2018 Nov 1; 75 (6): e240-e245.

    PurposeTimely debriefing following a simulated event supports learners in critically reflecting on their performance and areas for improvement. Content of debriefing has been shown to affect learner skill acquisition and retention. The use of good judgment statements from debriefing facilitators is considered superior to judgmental or nonjudgmental statements. Ideally, the majority of the conversation will consist of learner self-reflection and focused facilitation rather than directive performance feedback. We hypothesized that the introduction of a written tool to help facilitate high-quality debriefing techniques could improve the ratio of judgmental, nonjudgmental, and good judgment statements from facilitators, as well as shift the percentage of talk in the debrief away from directive performance feedback and toward self-assessment and focused facilitation.MethodsThe University of Wisconsin Joint Trauma Simulation Program is an interdisciplinary project to improve quality of trauma care through simulation. Simulations use teams of five trauma trainees: two surgery residents, an emergency medicine resident, and two nurses. Three faculty members conducted the scenarios and debriefings. Debriefings were video recorded. Videos were transcribed and dialogue analyzed according to the teaching/learning strategy used in each turn of talk. Discourse was coded into three categories: (1) learner self-assessment; (2) focused facilitation; and (3) directive performance feedback. Each facilitation statement was coded as either (1) judgmental; (2) nonjudgmental, or (3) good judgment. The TEAM Debrief Tool is a written guide designed to help facilitators adhere to best practices, with example structure and phrasing, similar to the Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation tool. Pre- and post-implementation analysis was completed to assess for efficacy of the tool.ResultsSeven videos before the implementation of the tool and seven videos after implementation were analyzed. The percentage of learner self-assessment increased significantly with tool use (7.23% vs 24.99%, p = 0.00004), and directive performance feedback decreased significantly (56.13% vs 32.75%, p = 0.0042). There was no significant change in the percentage of talk using focused facilitation. After implementation of the tool, there was a significant decrease in use of the nonjudgmental debriefing style (60.63% vs 37.31%, p = 0.00017), and a significant increase in the use of good judgment debriefing (38.77% vs 59.82%, p = 0.00038). There was also a slight increase in judgmental debriefing (0.60% vs 2.87%, p = 0.0027).ConclusionsThe discourse in our interprofessional trauma simulation debriefings unaided by a written debriefing tool skewed heavily toward direct performance feedback, with a preponderance of nonjudgmental statements. After introduction of the tool, dialogue shifted significantly toward learner self-assessment, and there was a large increase in utilization of debriefing with good judgment. This shift toward higher quality debriefing styles demonstrates the utility of such a tool in the debriefing of interprofessional simulations.Copyright © 2018 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.