Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: InterProfessional Team Training and Simulation pp 65–74Cite as

Best Practices for Interprofessional Education Debriefing in Medical Simulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

Abstract

This chapter reviews the key features of debriefing within the context of interprofessional medical simulation. We first review the importance of debriefing in light of modern training and learning theories. Following we discuss the structural elements of debriefs including the various roles required for effective debriefing. Finally, we introduce best practices for delivering a debrief including topics to focus on and methods for ensuring learning occurs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Helmreich RL, Merritt AC. Culture at work in aviation and medicine: national, organizational and professional influences. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Brookfield; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2013;55(1):231–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dreifuerst KT. The essentials of debriefing in simulation learning: a concept analysis. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2009;30(2):109–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lateef F. Simulation-based learning: just like the real thing. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2010;3(4):348–52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Warrick DD, Hunsaker RL, Cook CW, Airman S. Debriefing experiential learning exercises. J Exp Learn Simul. 1979;1:91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boet S, Bould MD, Burn CL, Reeves S. Twelve tips for a successful interprofessional team-based high-fidelity simulation education session. Med Teach. 2014 Oct;36(10):853–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Galloway S. Simulation techniques to bridge the gap between novice and competent healthcare professionals. Online J Issues Nurs. 2009;14(2):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rothgeb M. Creating a nursing simulation laboratory: a literature review. J Nurs Educ. 2008;47(11):489–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(2):115–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dieckmann P, Molin Friis S, Lippert A, Ostergaard D. The art and science of debriefing in simulation: ideal and practice. Med Teach. 2009;31(7):287–94.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gardner R. Introduction to debriefing. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(3):166–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kriz WC. Systemic-constructiveist approach to the facilitation and debriefing of simulations and games. Simul Gaming. 1992;41(5):663–80.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stewart LP. Ethical issues in postexperimental and postexperiential debriefing. Simul Gaming. 1992;23(2):196–211.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Phrampus P, O’Donnell JM. Debriefing in simulation education – using a structured and supported model. A special presentation at the symposium on nursing simulation at the Peter M. Winter Institute for Simulation, Education & Research.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Levett-Jones T, Lapkin S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation debriefing in health professional education. Nurs Educ Today. 2014;34(6):58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nicholson S. Completing the experience: debriefing in experiential educational games. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on society and information technologies. Winter Garden: International Institute of Informatics and Systemics; 2012. p. 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Arafeh J, Hansen S, Nichols A. Debriefing in simulated-based learning: facilitating a reflective discussion. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2010;24(4):302–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Issenberg SB, Mcgaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shinnick MA, Woo M, Horwich TB, Steadman R. Debriefing: the most important component in simulation? Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7:105–11.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lederman LC. Debriefing: toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simul Gaming. 1992;23(2):145–60.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cantrell M. The importance of debriefing in clinical simulations. Clin Simul Nurs. 2008;4(2):19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lyons R, Lazzara EH, Benishek LE, Zajac S, Gregory M, Sonesh SC, et al. Enhancing the effectiveness of team debriefings in medical simulation: more best practices. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(3):115–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tannenbaum SI, Goldhaber-Fiebert SN. Medical team debriefs: simple, powerful, underutilized. In: Salas E, Frush K, editors. Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. New York City: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 249–53.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johson-Pivec CR. Debriefing after simulation: guidelines for faculty and students. Master theses published at St. Catherine University; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ghauri, B. Debriefing with your pants on. Presentation. Presented at the Drexel University conference: Simul Healthc, Orlando; 2011, March.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McDonnell LK, Jobe KK, Dismukes RK. Facilitating LOS debriefings: a training manual. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2000. p. 26–49.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Overstreet M. Ee-chats: the seven components of nursing debriefing. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2010;41(12):538–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith-Jentsch KA, Cannon-Bowers JA, Tannenbaum S. Guided team self-correction: impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Gr Res. 2008;39:303–29.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wagner D, Bear M, Sander J. Turning simulation into reality: increasing student competence and confidence. J Nurs Educ. 2009;48:465–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Boet S, Bould MD, Bruppacher HR, Desjardins F, Chandra DB, Naik VN. Looking in the mirror: self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(6):1377–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zang C, Thompson S, Miller C. A review of simulation-based interprofessional education. Clin Simul Nurs. 2010;7(4):117–26.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Burns CL. Using debriefing and feedback in simulation to improve participant performance: an educator’s perspective. Int J Med Educ. 2015;6:118–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kolb DA. The Kolb learning style inventory (version 3.1). Boston: Hay Group; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Anderson M. Debriefing and guided reflection. 2008. From: http://sirc.nln.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=168.

  35. Waxman K. The development of evidence based clinical simulation scenarios: guidelines for nurse educators. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49:29–35. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20090916-07.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Savoldelli GL, Naik VN, Park J, Joo HS, Chow R, Hamstra SJ. Value of debriefing during simulated crisis management. Anaesthesia. 2006;105(2):279–85.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Welke TM, LeBlanc VR, Savoldelli GL, Joo HS, Chandra DB, Crabtree DB, et al. Personalized oral debriefing versus Standardized multimedia instruction after patient crisis simulation. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(1):183–9.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Byrne A, Sellen A, Jones J, Aitkenhead A, Hussain S, Gilder F. Effect of videotape feedback on anaesthetists performance while managing simulated anaesthetic crises: a multicentre study. Anaesthesia. 2002;57:176–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dine C, Gersh R, Leary M, Riegel B, Bellini L, Abella B. Improving cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and resuscitation training by combining audiovisual feedback and debriefing. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:2817–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Grant JS, Moss J, Epps C, Watts P. Using video-facilitated feedback to improve student performance following high-fidelity simulation. Clin Simul Nurs. 2010;6:177–84.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Van Heukelom J, Begaz T, Treat R. Comparison of postsimulation debriefing versus in-simulation debriefing in medical simulation. Simul Healthc. 2010;5:91–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jaye P, Thomas L, Reedy G. ‘The diamond’: a structure for simulation debrief. Clin Teach. 2015 Jun;12(3):171–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Chronister C, Brown D. Comparison of simulation debriefing methods. Clin Simul Nurs. 2012;8(7):281–8.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Morgan P, Tarshis J, LeBlanc V, Cleave-Hogg D, DeSousa S, Haley M. Efficacy of high-fidelity simulation debriefing on the performance of practicing anaesthetists in simulated scenarios. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:531–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Decker S. Integrating guided reflection into simulated learning experiences. In: Jeffries P, editor. Simulation in nursing education: from conceptualization to evaluation, 2007. New York: National League for Nursing. p. 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Flanagan B. Debriefing: theory and techniques. In: Riley R, editor. Manual of simulation in healthcare. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 155–70.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jeffries PR. Simulation in nursing education: from conceptualization to evaluation. New York: National League for Nursing; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wotton K, Davis J, Button D, Kelton M. Third-year undergraduate nursing students’ perceptions of high-fidelity simulation. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49(11):632–9. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100831-01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ron N, Lipshitz R, Popper M. How organizations learn: post-flight reviews in a F-16 fighter squadron. Organ Stud. 2002;27:1069–89.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kolb D. Experiential learning: experience as a source of learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kolbe M, Weiss M, Grote G, Knauth A, Dambach M, Spahn DR, Grande B. TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(7):541–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-tear odyssey. Am Psychol. 2002;57:705–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Eddy ER, D’Abate CP, Tannenbaum SI, Givens-Skeaton S, Robinson G. Key characteristics of effective and ineffective developmental interations. Hum Resource Dev Rev. 2006;17:59–84.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jawahar IM, Williams CR. Where all the children are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect. Pers Psychol. 1997;50:905–25.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Murphy KR, Cleveland JN. Understanding performance appraisal: social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Locke EA, Latham GP. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine and Department of Surgery, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Kristen L. W. Webster

  2. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA

    Joseph R. Keebler

Authors
  1. Kristen L. W. Webster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph R. Keebler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Louisiana State University (LSU) Health, New Orleans School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA

    John T. Paige

  2. Organizational Psychologist, Sonnenschein Consulting, LLC, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Shirley C. Sonesh

  3. Associate Dean for Professional Practice, Community Service and Advanced Nursing Practice, Professor of Clinical Nursing, LSUHSC School of Nursing, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Deborah D. Garbee

  4. Nurse Anesthesia Program Director, Louisiana State University (LSU) Health, School of Nursing, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Laura S. Bonanno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Webster, K.L.W., Keebler, J.R. (2020). Best Practices for Interprofessional Education Debriefing in Medical Simulation. In: Paige, J., Sonesh, S., Garbee, D., Bonanno, L. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: InterProfessional Team Training and Simulation. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28845-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28845-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28844-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28845-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation