Hot Versus Cold Debriefing in a Nursing Context: An Integrative Review.

The Journal of nursing education Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3928/01484834-20240529-02

Fahad Zeed Alanez, Elaine Miller, Caroline F Morrison, Benjamin Kelcey, Robin Wagner

{"title":"Hot Versus Cold Debriefing in a Nursing Context: An Integrative Review.","authors":"Fahad Zeed Alanez, Elaine Miller, Caroline F Morrison, Benjamin Kelcey, Robin Wagner","doi":"10.3928/01484834-20240529-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Hot debriefing occurs shortly after simulations or real-life events, whereas cold debriefings occur after 24 hours. This integrative review examined the effects of hot versus cold debriefing after simulation on prelicensure students.Method: Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage method was followed. Databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO. The inclusion criteria were studies published in English that involved prelicensure nursing students and measured the effect of hot or cold debriefing.Results: Themes emerged from 10 studies and included clinical judgment and decision making, knowledge and skills, participant experiences, reflection, and psychological safety and self-efficacy.Conclusion: Hot debriefing was preferred by participants, but cold debriefing resulted in higher knowledge and skills scores. In addition, students in the cold debriefing group were more conformable and in a safe environment compared with the hot debriefing group. Drawing a strong conclusion was difficult due to heterogeneity in study designs and methods. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(10):653-658.].","PeriodicalId":94241,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of nursing education","volume":"63 10","pages":"653-658"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of nursing education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20240529-02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hot debriefing occurs shortly after simulations or real-life events, whereas cold debriefings occur after 24 hours. This integrative review examined the effects of hot versus cold debriefing after simulation on prelicensure students.

Method: Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage method was followed. Databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO. The inclusion criteria were studies published in English that involved prelicensure nursing students and measured the effect of hot or cold debriefing.

Results: Themes emerged from 10 studies and included clinical judgment and decision making, knowledge and skills, participant experiences, reflection, and psychological safety and self-efficacy.

Conclusion: Hot debriefing was preferred by participants, but cold debriefing resulted in higher knowledge and skills scores. In addition, students in the cold debriefing group were more conformable and in a safe environment compared with the hot debriefing group. Drawing a strong conclusion was difficult due to heterogeneity in study designs and methods. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(10):653-658.].

查看原文本刊更多论文

护理背景下的热汇报与冷汇报：综合评述。

背景：热汇报发生在模拟或真实事件发生后不久，而冷汇报则发生在 24 小时之后。本综述研究了模拟后热汇报与冷汇报对执照前学生的影响：方法：采用 Whittemore 和 Knafl 的五阶段法。检索的数据库包括 PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus 和 PsycINFO。纳入标准是以英语发表的涉及护士执照前学生的研究，并衡量了冷热汇报的效果：结果：10 项研究得出的主题包括临床判断与决策、知识与技能、参与者经验、反思、心理安全与自我效能：结论：参与者更喜欢热汇报，但冷汇报的知识和技能得分更高。此外，与热汇报组相比，冷汇报组的学生更容易接受，环境也更安全。由于研究设计和方法的异质性，很难得出有力的结论。[护理教育杂志》，2024；63（10）：653-658。］

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

The Journal of nursing education

自引率

0.00%

发文量