The “Timeline Debriefing Tool”: a tool for structuring the debriefing description phase
Tóm tắt
Several recent literature reviews have been published with the aim to determine how to optimise a debriefing. A main element found in these reviews was the importance of structuring the debriefing. Within the steps usually outlined in the debriefing, the description phase allows participants to describe their recollections and establish a shared mental model of what happened during the simulation. The description phase is used in many debriefing models but how to realise this description remains unclear. We provide an original tool to ensure a highly structured description phase: the “Timeline Debriefing Tool”. The Timeline Debriefing Tool, or TDT, is constructed on visual support such as a whiteboard or a flipchart. It allows for a clear description phase, makes the process more dynamic, promotes exchanges between participants and establishes a clear and shared vision of the simulation in visual support which can be used by the instructor in the analysis phase. Moreover, the timeline allows participants to discover their performance gaps by themselves, thus beginning deeper cognitive processing in the participants’ mind and promoting reflection in the analysis phase.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Fanning R, Gaba D. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(2):115–25.
Raemer D, Anderson M, Cheng A, Fanning R, Nadkarni V, Savoldelli G. Research regarding debriefing as part of the learning process. Simul Healthc. 2011;7(6):S52–7.
Levin H, Cheng A, Catena H, Chatfield J, Cripps A, Bisset W, Burgess G, Landry K, Assad MA, Grant V. Debriefing frameworks and methods. In: Chiniara G, editor. Clinical simulation. London: Academic; 2019. p. 483–505.
Riviere E, Jaffrelot M, Jouquan J, Chiniara G. Debriefing for the transfer of learning: the importance of context. Acad Med. 2019;94(6):796–803.
Tannenbaum S, Cesaroli C. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2013;55(1):231–45.
Cheng A, Eppich W, Grant V, Sherbino J, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ. 2014;48:657–66.
Dufrene C. Young, A. Successful debriefing. Best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: a literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(3):372–6.
Levett-Jones T, Lapkin S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation debriefing in health professional education. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(6):e58–63.
Garden A, Le Fevre D, Waddington H, Weller J. Debriefing after simulation based non-technical skill training in healthcare: a systematic review of effective practice. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2015;43(3):300–8.
Hall K, Tori K. Best practice recommendations for debriefing in simulation-based education for Australian undergraduate nursing students: an integrative review. Simulation Nurs. 2017;13(1):39–50.
Johnston S, Coyer F, Nash R. Kirkpatrick’s evaluation of simulation and debriefing in healthcare education: a systematic review. J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(7):393–8.
Dreifuerst K. Using debriefing for meaningful learning to foster development of clinical reasoning in simulation. J Nurs Educ. 2012;51(6):326–33.
Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS). Development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(2):106–15.
Dieckmann P, Patterson M, Saadi L, Mesman J, Nyström P, Krage R. Variation and adaptation: learning from success in safety-oriented simulation training. Adv Simul. 2017;2:21.
Sawyer T, Eppich W, Brett-Fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More than one way to debrief. A critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing method. Simul Healthc. 2016;11(3):209–17.
Tulving E, Thomson DM. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev. 1973;80:359–80.
Flexter A, Tulving E. (1978). Retrieval independance in recognition and recall. Psychol Rev. 1978;85:153–71.
Thomson DM, Tulving E. Associative encoding and retrieval: weak and strong cues. J Exp Psychol. 1970;86(2):255–62.
Steinwachs B. How to facilitate a debriefing. Simul Gaming. 1992;23(2):186–95.
Villado A, Arthur W. The comparative effect of subjective and objective after action reviews on team performance in a complex task. J Appl Psychol. 2013;98(3):514–28.
Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1010–6.
Banks M, Zeitlyn D. Visual methods in social research. 2nd edition. ed. London. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2015.
Bezemer J. Visual research in clinical education. Med Educ. 2015;51(1):105–13.
Cheng A, Morse K, Rudolph J, Arab A, Runnacles J, Eppich W. Learner-centered debriefing for healthcare simulation education. Simul Healthc. 2016;11(1):32–40.
Cheng A, Grant V, Dieckmann P, Arora S, Robinson T, Eppich W. Faculty development for simulation programs. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(4):217–22.
Ahmed M, Arora S, Russ S, Darzi A, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. Operation debrief: a SHARP improvement in performance feedback in the operating room. Ann Surg. 2013;258:958Y963.
HusebØ SE, Dieckmann P, Rystedf H, Soreide E, Friberg F. The relationship between facilitators’s questions and the level of reflexion in post simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(3):134–42.
Cheng A, Rodgers D, Van Der Jagt E, Eppich W, O’Donnell J. Evolution of the pediatric advanced life support course: enhanced learning with a new debriefing tool and web-based module for pediatric advanced life support instructors. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012;13(5):589Y595.
Kolbe M, Weiss M, Grote G, et al. TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:541Y553.
Piaget J. The development of thought: equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking; 1977.
Limon M. On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learn Instruct. 2001;11:357–80.
Rudolph J, Simon R, Dufresne R, Raemer D. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(1):49–55.
Rudolph J, Simon R, Rivard P, Dufresne R, Raemer D. Debriefing with good judgment: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007;25(2):361–76.
Husebø SE, O’Reagan S. Reflexive practice and its role in simulation. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015;11(8):368–75.
Fraser KL, Meguerdichian MJ, Haws JT, Grant VJ, Bajaj K, Cheng A. Cognitive load theory for debriefing simulations: implication for faculty development. Adv Simul. 2018;3:28.
Fraser KL, Ayres P, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(5):295–307.
Van Merrienboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44(44):85–93.