Debriefing or Feedback: Exploring the Impact of Two Post-Scenario Discussion Methods in the Acquisition and Retention of Non-Technical Skills
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.16898Keywords:
Clinical Competence, Formative Feedback, Patient Care Team, Simulation Training, Students, MedicalAbstract
Introduction: There is a paucity of quantitative studies objectively comparing debriefing and feedback as methods for post-scenario discussion and its impact on healthcare teams’ acquisition and retention of non-technical skills. The main purpose of this study is to provide some insight on this research question, using a sample of medical students. A secondary objective explores students’ opinion and preference on the post-scenario discussion.
Material and Methods: Forty-five medical students were distributed among 15 teams, and randomly allocated to two groups. Each team participated in three different simulated scenarios, with similar levels of difficulty and opportunities to apply specific non-technical skills: leadership, communication, and task management. To assess the acquisition and retention of skills, scenarios occurred on days one (baseline), two (acquisition) and 20 (retention). Team performance was objectively evaluated by an observer, using scenario recordings. Students individually assessed different aspects of debriefing and feedback.
Results: Both debriefing and feedback groups showed similar overall increase in objective scores, with significant increase between days one and two (acquisition), and a smaller increase between days two and 20 (retention). Students indicated debriefing as the preferred discussion method.
Conclusion: Debriefing and feedback are effective post-scenario discussion methods, promoting acquisition and retention of non-technical skills, by undergraduate students. Allying debriefing reflexive practice with feedback directive style, and shifting appropriately between facilitation and instruction, can be a good compromise to achieve a timely and educationally meaningful discussion.
Downloads
References
Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human: building a safer health system. Committee on Quality in America. Washington: National Academy Press; 1999.
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health care system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.
National Healthcare System, National Patient Safety Agency. Seven steps to patient safety: full reference guide. London: NHS; 2004.
Donaldson MS. An overview of to err is human: re-emphasizing the message of patient safety. In: Hughes RG editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
Pham JC, Aswani MS, Rosen M, Lee H, Huddle M, Weeks K, et al. Reducing medical errors and adverse events. Annu Rev Med. 2012;63:447-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-061410-121352
Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;3:353-i2139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139
Bagnasco A, Pagnucci N, Tolotti A, Rosa F, Torre G, Sasso L. The role of simulation in developing communication and gestural skills in medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2014;23:14-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-106
Hamo I. The role of the skills laboratory in the integrated curriculum of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Science. Med Teach. 1994;16:167-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599409006727
Gordon J, Wilkerson W, Shaffer D, Armstrong E. Practicing medicine without risk: students’ and educators’ responses to high-fidelity patient simulation. Acad Med. 2001;76:469-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00019
Bradley P. The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Med Educ. 2006;40:254-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02394.x
Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Simul Healthc. 2006;1:252-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SIH.0000242724.08501.63
Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:i2–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.009878
Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. Med Teach. 2015;35:10,e1511-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.818632
Sa-Couto CD, Patrão L, Maio-Matos F, Pego JM. Biomedical simulation: evolution, concepts, challenges and future trends. Acta Med Port. 2016;30;29:860-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.8403
Gardner R. Introduction to debriefing. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37:166-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2013.02.008
Rudolph J, Simon R, Dufresne R, Raemer D. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006;1:49-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01266021-200600110-00006
Fanning R, Gaba D. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007;2:115-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539
Tavares W, Eppich W, Cheng A, Miller S, Teunissen PW, Watling CJ, et al. Learning conversations: an analysis of the theoretical roots and their manifestations of feedback and debriefing in medical education. Acad Med. 2020;95:1020-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002932
Ramani S, Könings KD, Ginsburg S, van der Vleuten CP. Meaningful feedback through a sociocultural lens. Med Teach. 2019;41:1342-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1656804
Sawyer T, Eppich W, Brett-Fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More than one way to debrief: a critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simul Healthc. 2016;11:209-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148
Jug R, Jiang XS, Bean SM. Giving and receiving effective feedback: a review article and how-to guide. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143:244-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2018-0058-RA
Pendleton D, Scofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The consultation: an approach to learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.
Chowdhury R, Kalu G. Learning to give feedback in medical education. Obst Gynaec. 2004;6:243-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1576/toag.6.4.243.27023
Branch W, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med. 2002;77:1185-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200212000-00005
Abulebda K, Auerbach M, Limaiem F. Debriefing techniques utilized in medical simulation. [Updated 2020 Nov 21]. 2020. [cited 2020 Dec 16] Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546660/.
Dreifuerst KT. The essentials of debriefing in simulation learning: a concept analysis. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2009;30:109-14.
Pivec JR. Debriefing after simulation: guidelines for faculty and students. St. Paul: St. Catherine University; 2011.
Nicholas C. Teaching with simulation. In: Huggett KN, Jeffries WB, editors. An introduction to medical teaching. 2nd ed. Springer; 2014. p. 93-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9066-6_8
Chen TY. Medical leadership: an important and required competency for medical students. Tzu Chi Med J. 2018;30:66–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_26_18
Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Sevdalis N. The role of non-technical skills in surgery. Ann Med Surg. 2015;4:422-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.10.006
Voyer S, Hatala R. Debriefing and feedback: two sides of the same coin? Simul Healthc. 2015;10:67-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000075
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Acta Médica Portuguesa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All the articles published in the AMP are open access and comply with the requirements of funding agencies or academic institutions. The AMP is governed by the terms of the Creative Commons ‘Attribution – Non-Commercial Use - (CC-BY-NC)’ license, regarding the use by third parties.
It is the author’s responsibility to obtain approval for the reproduction of figures, tables, etc. from other publications.
Upon acceptance of an article for publication, the authors will be asked to complete the ICMJE “Copyright Liability and Copyright Sharing Statement “(http://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/info/AMP-NormasPublicacao.pdf) and the “Declaration of Potential Conflicts of Interest” (http:// www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest). An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript.
After publication, the authors are authorised to make their articles available in repositories of their institutions of origin, as long as they always mention where they were published and according to the Creative Commons license.
