Evaluating facilitator adherence to a newly adopted simulation debriefing framework.

Canadian medical education journal Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.36834/cmej.77268
Lucas Smith, A J Kleinheksel, Matthew Tews
{"title":"Evaluating facilitator adherence to a newly adopted simulation debriefing framework.","authors":"Lucas Smith, A J Kleinheksel, Matthew Tews","doi":"10.36834/cmej.77268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-simulation debriefing is a critical component of the learning process for simulation-based medical education, and multiple frameworks have been established in an attempt to maximize learning during debriefing through guided reflection. This study developed and applied a rubric to measure facilitator adherence to the newly adopted Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) debriefing framework to evaluate the efficacy of current faculty development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of 187 videos using a structured 13-behavior rubric based on the PEARLS debriefing model was conducted of facilitator-learner debriefings following a simulated clinical encounter for medical students. The aggregate results were used to describe common patterns of debriefing and focus future faculty development efforts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 187 debriefings facilitated by 32 different facilitators were analyzed. Average scores for each of the 13 PEARLS framework behaviors ranged from 0.04 to 0.971. Seven items had an average of ≥ 0.77, ten averaged > 0.60 and two averaged < 0.20.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Faculty adhered to some behaviors elicited by the PEARLS model more consistently than others. These results suggest that faculty facilitators are more likely to adhere to frameworks that focus on educational behaviors and less likely to adhere to organizational or methodological frameworks.</p>","PeriodicalId":72503,"journal":{"name":"Canadian medical education journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"71-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931189/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian medical education journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.77268","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Post-simulation debriefing is a critical component of the learning process for simulation-based medical education, and multiple frameworks have been established in an attempt to maximize learning during debriefing through guided reflection. This study developed and applied a rubric to measure facilitator adherence to the newly adopted Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) debriefing framework to evaluate the efficacy of current faculty development.

Methods: A retrospective review of 187 videos using a structured 13-behavior rubric based on the PEARLS debriefing model was conducted of facilitator-learner debriefings following a simulated clinical encounter for medical students. The aggregate results were used to describe common patterns of debriefing and focus future faculty development efforts.

Results: In total, 187 debriefings facilitated by 32 different facilitators were analyzed. Average scores for each of the 13 PEARLS framework behaviors ranged from 0.04 to 0.971. Seven items had an average of ≥ 0.77, ten averaged > 0.60 and two averaged < 0.20.

Conclusions: Faculty adhered to some behaviors elicited by the PEARLS model more consistently than others. These results suggest that faculty facilitators are more likely to adhere to frameworks that focus on educational behaviors and less likely to adhere to organizational or methodological frameworks.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 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