传统反思式汇报与快速循环慎思实践跨学科团队培训中汇报者的认知负荷。

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Susan Wiltrakis, Ruth Hwu, Sherita Holmes, Srikant Iyer, Nandranie Goodwin, Claire Mathai, Scott Gillespie, Kiran B Hebbar, Nora Colman
{"title":"传统反思式汇报与快速循环慎思实践跨学科团队培训中汇报者的认知负荷。","authors":"Susan Wiltrakis, Ruth Hwu, Sherita Holmes, Srikant Iyer, Nandranie Goodwin, Claire Mathai, Scott Gillespie, Kiran B Hebbar, Nora Colman","doi":"10.1186/s41077-024-00296-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cognitive load impacts performance of debriefers and learners during simulations, but limited data exists examining debriefer cognitive load. The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive load of the debriefers during simulation-based team training (SbTT) with Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) debriefing and Traditional Reflective Debriefing (TRD). We hypothesize that cognitive load will be reduced during RCDP compared to TRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was part of a large-scale, interdisciplinary team training program at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Egleston Pediatric Emergency Department, with 164 learners (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, and respiratory therapists (RTs)). Eight debriefers (main facilitators and discipline-specific coaches) led 28 workshops, which were quasi-randomized to either RCDP or TRD. Each session began with a baseline medical resuscitation scenario and cognitive load measurement using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), and the NASA TLX was repeated immediately following either TRD or RCDP debriefing. Raw scores of the NASA TLX before and after intervention were compared. ANOVA tests were used to compare differences in NASA TLX scores before and after intervention between the RCDP and TRD groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For all debriefers, mean NASA TLX scores for physical demands and frustration significantly decreased (- 0.8, p = 0.004 and - 1.3, p = 0.002) in TRD and mean perceived performance success significantly increased (+ 2.4, p < 0.001). For RCDP, perceived performance success increased post-debriefing (+ 3.6, p < 0.001), time demands decreased (- 1.0, p = 0.04), and frustration decreased (- 2.0, p < 0.001). Comparing TRD directly to RCDP, perceived performance success was greater in RCDP than TRD (3.6 vs. 2.4, p = 0.04). Main facilitators had lower effort and mental demand in RCDP and greater perceived success (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCDP had greater perceived success than TRD for debriefers. Main facilitators also report reduced effort and baseline mental demand in RCDP. For less experienced debriefers, newer simulation programs, or large team training sessions such as our study, RCDP may be a less mentally demanding debriefing methodology for facilitators.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149316/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Debriefer cognitive load during Traditional Reflective Debriefing vs. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice interdisciplinary team training.\",\"authors\":\"Susan Wiltrakis, Ruth Hwu, Sherita Holmes, Srikant Iyer, Nandranie Goodwin, Claire Mathai, Scott Gillespie, Kiran B Hebbar, Nora Colman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41077-024-00296-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cognitive load impacts performance of debriefers and learners during simulations, but limited data exists examining debriefer cognitive load. The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive load of the debriefers during simulation-based team training (SbTT) with Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) debriefing and Traditional Reflective Debriefing (TRD). We hypothesize that cognitive load will be reduced during RCDP compared to TRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was part of a large-scale, interdisciplinary team training program at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Egleston Pediatric Emergency Department, with 164 learners (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, and respiratory therapists (RTs)). Eight debriefers (main facilitators and discipline-specific coaches) led 28 workshops, which were quasi-randomized to either RCDP or TRD. Each session began with a baseline medical resuscitation scenario and cognitive load measurement using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), and the NASA TLX was repeated immediately following either TRD or RCDP debriefing. Raw scores of the NASA TLX before and after intervention were compared. ANOVA tests were used to compare differences in NASA TLX scores before and after intervention between the RCDP and TRD groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For all debriefers, mean NASA TLX scores for physical demands and frustration significantly decreased (- 0.8, p = 0.004 and - 1.3, p = 0.002) in TRD and mean perceived performance success significantly increased (+ 2.4, p < 0.001). For RCDP, perceived performance success increased post-debriefing (+ 3.6, p < 0.001), time demands decreased (- 1.0, p = 0.04), and frustration decreased (- 2.0, p < 0.001). Comparing TRD directly to RCDP, perceived performance success was greater in RCDP than TRD (3.6 vs. 2.4, p = 0.04). Main facilitators had lower effort and mental demand in RCDP and greater perceived success (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCDP had greater perceived success than TRD for debriefers. Main facilitators also report reduced effort and baseline mental demand in RCDP. For less experienced debriefers, newer simulation programs, or large team training sessions such as our study, RCDP may be a less mentally demanding debriefing methodology for facilitators.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149316/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-024-00296-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-024-00296-1","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

摘要

背景:认知负荷会影响模拟过程中汇报者和学员的表现,但目前研究汇报者认知负荷的数据有限。本研究旨在比较在基于模拟的团队培训(SbTT)中采用快速循环慎重实践(RCDP)汇报和传统反思性汇报(TRD)时汇报者的认知负荷。我们假设,与 TRD 相比,RCDP 会减轻认知负荷:本研究是亚特兰大埃格尔斯顿儿童医疗保健中心儿科急诊部大型跨学科团队培训项目的一部分,共有 164 名学员(医生、护士、医疗技术人员、护理人员和呼吸治疗师)参加。八名汇报者(主要主持人和特定学科教练)主持了 28 场研讨会,这些研讨会被准随机分配给 RCDP 或 TRD。每节课开始时都会设置一个医疗复苏情景基线,并使用美国航空航天局任务负荷指数(TLX)测量认知负荷,然后在 TRD 或 RCDP 汇报后立即重复美国航空航天局任务负荷指数。对干预前后的 NASA TLX 原始分数进行比较。方差分析检验用于比较 RCDP 组和 TRD 组在干预前后 NASA TLX 分数的差异:结果:在所有汇报者中,TRD 组在体力需求和挫折感方面的 NASA TLX 平均得分显著下降(- 0.8,p = 0.004 和- 1.3,p = 0.002),而在成功感方面的平均得分显著上升(+ 2.4,p 结论:RCDP 组在成功感方面的得分高于 TRD 组:与 TRD 相比,RCDP 对汇报者的成功感更高。主要促进者还报告说,在 RCDP 中,努力程度和基线心理需求都有所降低。对于经验较少的汇报者、较新的模拟项目或大型团队培训课程(如我们的研究)来说,RCDP 可能是一种对主持人心理要求较低的汇报方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Debriefer cognitive load during Traditional Reflective Debriefing vs. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice interdisciplinary team training.

Background: Cognitive load impacts performance of debriefers and learners during simulations, but limited data exists examining debriefer cognitive load. The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive load of the debriefers during simulation-based team training (SbTT) with Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) debriefing and Traditional Reflective Debriefing (TRD). We hypothesize that cognitive load will be reduced during RCDP compared to TRD.

Methods: This study was part of a large-scale, interdisciplinary team training program at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Egleston Pediatric Emergency Department, with 164 learners (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, and respiratory therapists (RTs)). Eight debriefers (main facilitators and discipline-specific coaches) led 28 workshops, which were quasi-randomized to either RCDP or TRD. Each session began with a baseline medical resuscitation scenario and cognitive load measurement using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), and the NASA TLX was repeated immediately following either TRD or RCDP debriefing. Raw scores of the NASA TLX before and after intervention were compared. ANOVA tests were used to compare differences in NASA TLX scores before and after intervention between the RCDP and TRD groups.

Results: For all debriefers, mean NASA TLX scores for physical demands and frustration significantly decreased (- 0.8, p = 0.004 and - 1.3, p = 0.002) in TRD and mean perceived performance success significantly increased (+ 2.4, p < 0.001). For RCDP, perceived performance success increased post-debriefing (+ 3.6, p < 0.001), time demands decreased (- 1.0, p = 0.04), and frustration decreased (- 2.0, p < 0.001). Comparing TRD directly to RCDP, perceived performance success was greater in RCDP than TRD (3.6 vs. 2.4, p = 0.04). Main facilitators had lower effort and mental demand in RCDP and greater perceived success (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: RCDP had greater perceived success than TRD for debriefers. Main facilitators also report reduced effort and baseline mental demand in RCDP. For less experienced debriefers, newer simulation programs, or large team training sessions such as our study, RCDP may be a less mentally demanding debriefing methodology for facilitators.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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