Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data and conversational diagrams.

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Andrew Coggins, Sun Song Hong, Kaushik Baliga, Louis P Halamek
{"title":"Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data and conversational diagrams.","authors":"Andrew Coggins, Sun Song Hong, Kaushik Baliga, Louis P Halamek","doi":"10.1186/s41077-022-00203-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Debriefing is an essential skill for simulation educators and feedback for debriefers is recognised as important in progression to mastery. Existing assessment tools, such as the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH), may assist in rating performance but their utility is limited by subjectivity and complexity. Use of quantitative data measurements for feedback has been shown to improve performance of clinicians but has not been studied as a focus for debriefer feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-centre sample of interdisciplinary debriefings was observed. Total debriefing time, length of individual contributions and demographics were recorded. DASH scores from simulation participants, debriefers and supervising faculty were collected after each event. Conversational diagrams were drawn in real-time by supervising faculty using an approach described by Dieckmann. For each debriefing, the data points listed above were compiled on a single page and then used as a focus for feedback to the debriefer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve debriefings were included (µ = 6.5 simulation participants per event). Debriefers receiving feedback from supervising faculty were physicians or nurses with a range of experience (n = 7). In 9/12 cases the ratio of debriefer to simulation participant contribution length was ≧ 1:1. The diagrams for these debriefings typically resembled a fan-shape. Debriefings (n = 3) with a ratio < 1:1 received higher DASH ratings compared with the ≧ 1:1 group (p = 0.038). These debriefings generated star-shaped diagrams. Debriefer self-rated DASH scores (µ = 5.08/7.0) were lower than simulation participant scores (µ = 6.50/7.0). The differences reached statistical significance for all 6 DASH elements. Debriefers evaluated the 'usefulness' of feedback and rated it 'highly' (µ= 4.6/5).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Basic quantitative data measures collected during debriefings may represent a useful focus for immediate debriefer feedback in a healthcare simulation setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"7 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8899451/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00203-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Debriefing is an essential skill for simulation educators and feedback for debriefers is recognised as important in progression to mastery. Existing assessment tools, such as the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH), may assist in rating performance but their utility is limited by subjectivity and complexity. Use of quantitative data measurements for feedback has been shown to improve performance of clinicians but has not been studied as a focus for debriefer feedback.

Methods: A multi-centre sample of interdisciplinary debriefings was observed. Total debriefing time, length of individual contributions and demographics were recorded. DASH scores from simulation participants, debriefers and supervising faculty were collected after each event. Conversational diagrams were drawn in real-time by supervising faculty using an approach described by Dieckmann. For each debriefing, the data points listed above were compiled on a single page and then used as a focus for feedback to the debriefer.

Results: Twelve debriefings were included (µ = 6.5 simulation participants per event). Debriefers receiving feedback from supervising faculty were physicians or nurses with a range of experience (n = 7). In 9/12 cases the ratio of debriefer to simulation participant contribution length was ≧ 1:1. The diagrams for these debriefings typically resembled a fan-shape. Debriefings (n = 3) with a ratio < 1:1 received higher DASH ratings compared with the ≧ 1:1 group (p = 0.038). These debriefings generated star-shaped diagrams. Debriefer self-rated DASH scores (µ = 5.08/7.0) were lower than simulation participant scores (µ = 6.50/7.0). The differences reached statistical significance for all 6 DASH elements. Debriefers evaluated the 'usefulness' of feedback and rated it 'highly' (µ= 4.6/5).

Conclusion: Basic quantitative data measures collected during debriefings may represent a useful focus for immediate debriefer feedback in a healthcare simulation setting.

利用汇报计时数据和会话图表即时反馈教师意见。
背景:汇报是模拟教育工作者的一项基本技能,而对汇报者的反馈则被认为是掌握汇报技巧的重要条件。现有的评估工具,如 "医疗保健模拟汇报评估"(DASH),可能有助于对表现进行评级,但其实用性受到主观性和复杂性的限制。使用定量数据测量反馈已被证明可提高临床医生的绩效,但尚未将其作为汇报者反馈的重点进行研究:方法:观察了跨学科汇报的多中心样本。方法: 对多中心跨学科汇报进行了抽样观察,记录了汇报的总时间、个人贡献的长度以及人口统计学特征。每次活动结束后,收集模拟参与者、汇报者和指导教师的 DASH 分数。指导教师采用 Dieckmann 所描述的方法实时绘制对话图。每次汇报时,上述数据点都会被汇编在一页纸上,然后作为反馈给汇报者的重点:结果:共进行了 12 次汇报(每次活动的模拟参与者为 6.5 人)。接受指导教师反馈意见的汇报者是具有不同经验的医生或护士(n = 7)。在 9/12 个案例中,汇报者与模拟参与者的贡献时长比≧ 1:1。这些汇报的图表通常呈扇形。与≧ 1:1 组相比,比例< 1:1 的汇报(n = 3)获得了更高的 DASH 评分(p = 0.038)。这些汇报生成了星形图。汇报者自评的 DASH 分数(µ = 5.08/7.0)低于模拟参与者的分数(µ = 6.50/7.0)。所有 6 个 DASH 要素的差异均达到了统计学意义。汇报者对反馈的 "有用性 "进行了评估,并给予了 "高度评价"(µ= 4.6/5):结论:在汇报过程中收集的基本定量数据可作为医疗模拟环境中汇报者即时反馈的有用重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信