Comparing two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks: a randomized cross-over simulation study.

IF 3.6 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frederik Marynen, Marco Garcia van Bijsterveld, Jill Van In, Jorg Roosen, Steffen Fieuws, Domien Vanhonacker, Walther Nka van Mook, Iwan C C van der Horst, Philippe Dewolf
{"title":"Comparing two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks: a randomized cross-over simulation study.","authors":"Frederik Marynen, Marco Garcia van Bijsterveld, Jill Van In, Jorg Roosen, Steffen Fieuws, Domien Vanhonacker, Walther Nka van Mook, Iwan C C van der Horst, Philippe Dewolf","doi":"10.1186/s41077-026-00460-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-resuscitation debriefing (PRD) enhances individual and team performance in emergency care, thereby improving patient outcomes and provider well-being. Despite support from the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association, the optimal PRD framework remains undefined. This study compares how team members experience PRD when conducted using either the DISCERN or Post-Code Pause (PCP) debriefing framework in pre-hospital cardiac arrest simulations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized cross-over study, 40 medical doctors participated in four advanced life support (ALS) simulation scenarios. Participants acted exclusively within their usual roles as team leaders, while the remaining team members performed standardized roles in accordance with the scenario scripts. Each participant experienced two DISCERN and two PCP debriefings, with the order randomized. The primary outcome was the total score on the Debriefing Experience Scale (DES), with item scores as secondary outcomes. Linear models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to account for repeated measures when comparing the mean scores between the debriefing frameworks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 158 DES questionnaires were analyzed. Mean total DES scores were 4.15 (4.02; 4.28) for PCP and 4.16 (4.02; 4.29) for DISCERN (p = 0.93 for the comparison). These scores indicate a favorable debriefing experience for both frameworks. At the DES item level, no statistically significant differences were observed between frameworks, except for perceived physical comfort in the debriefing environment, which was rated significantly higher for DISCERN (DISCERN = 4.44 (4.27; 4.62), PCP = 4.13 (3.96; 4.30), p = < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DISCERN and PCP provide similarly favorable debriefing experiences following simulated cardiac arrest scenarios, with no significant difference in overall DES scores. These findings suggest that both frameworks can be implemented without compromising perceived debriefing quality. Further research should include more professionally diverse participant samples and assess long-term debriefing outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Trial Center UZ Leuven, S65846 September 2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13599248/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-026-00460-9","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: Post-resuscitation debriefing (PRD) enhances individual and team performance in emergency care, thereby improving patient outcomes and provider well-being. Despite support from the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association, the optimal PRD framework remains undefined. This study compares how team members experience PRD when conducted using either the DISCERN or Post-Code Pause (PCP) debriefing framework in pre-hospital cardiac arrest simulations.

Methods: In a randomized cross-over study, 40 medical doctors participated in four advanced life support (ALS) simulation scenarios. Participants acted exclusively within their usual roles as team leaders, while the remaining team members performed standardized roles in accordance with the scenario scripts. Each participant experienced two DISCERN and two PCP debriefings, with the order randomized. The primary outcome was the total score on the Debriefing Experience Scale (DES), with item scores as secondary outcomes. Linear models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to account for repeated measures when comparing the mean scores between the debriefing frameworks.

Results: A total of 158 DES questionnaires were analyzed. Mean total DES scores were 4.15 (4.02; 4.28) for PCP and 4.16 (4.02; 4.29) for DISCERN (p = 0.93 for the comparison). These scores indicate a favorable debriefing experience for both frameworks. At the DES item level, no statistically significant differences were observed between frameworks, except for perceived physical comfort in the debriefing environment, which was rated significantly higher for DISCERN (DISCERN = 4.44 (4.27; 4.62), PCP = 4.13 (3.96; 4.30), p = < 0.0001).

Conclusion: DISCERN and PCP provide similarly favorable debriefing experiences following simulated cardiac arrest scenarios, with no significant difference in overall DES scores. These findings suggest that both frameworks can be implemented without compromising perceived debriefing quality. Further research should include more professionally diverse participant samples and assess long-term debriefing outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinical Trial Center UZ Leuven, S65846 September 2021.

比较两种复苏后汇报框架:一项随机交叉模拟研究。
背景:复苏后汇报(PRD)可提高急诊护理中的个人和团队绩效,从而改善患者预后和提供者福祉。尽管得到了欧洲复苏委员会和美国心脏协会的支持,但最佳PRD框架仍未确定。本研究比较了在院前心脏骤停模拟中使用DISCERN或Post-Code Pause (PCP)汇报框架时团队成员体验PRD的情况。方法:在一项随机交叉研究中,40名医生参与了4种晚期生命支持(ALS)模拟场景。参与者只在他们通常的角色中扮演团队领导的角色,而其余的团队成员则按照场景脚本执行标准化的角色。每个参与者都经历了两次DISCERN和两次PCP汇报,顺序随机。主要结果是汇报经验量表(DES)的总分,项目得分作为次要结果。在比较汇报框架之间的平均得分时,使用广义估计方程(GEE)的线性模型来解释重复测量。结果:共分析了158份DES问卷。PCP的平均DES总分为4.15 (4.02;4.28),DISCERN的平均DES总分为4.16 (4.02;4.29)(p = 0.93)。这些分数表明这两个框架都有良好的汇报经验。在DES项目水平上,两种框架之间没有统计学上的差异,除了在述评环境中的感知身体舒适度方面,DISCERN的评分明显更高(DISCERN = 4.44 (4.27; 4.62), PCP = 4.13 (3.96; 4.30), p =结论:在模拟心脏骤停场景后,DISCERN和PCP提供了相似的有利的述评体验,总体DES得分无显著差异。这些发现表明,这两个框架都可以在不影响感知的汇报质量的情况下实施。进一步的研究应该包括更多专业多样化的参与者样本,并评估长期汇报的结果。试验注册:UZ Leuven临床试验中心,S65846, 2021年9月。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书