Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Debriefing with Good Judgment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Comprehensive Textbook of Healthcare Simulation

Abstract

Debriefing is the learning conversation that follows a simulation session. The instructor’s role in providing feedback and guiding reflection is critical to ensure that reflecting on the simulation experience yields learning and growth in accordance with the stated educational goals of the session. This chapter describes the philosophy of “Debriefing with Good Judgment” which was developed at the Center for Medical Simulation in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In particular the focus is on four key principles that debriefers should follow: have learning objectives that are clearly defined prior to the simulation session, set expectations clearly for the debriefing session, be curious, give feedback, try not to “fix” your learners, and organize the debriefing session into three phases.

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

Access this chapter

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 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Darling M, Parry C, Moore J. Learning in the thick of it. Harv Bus Rev. 2005;83(7):84–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dismukes RK, McDonnell LK, Jobe KK. Facilitating LOFT debriefings: instructor techniques and crew participation. Int J Aviat Psychol. 2000;10:35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, 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. doi:10.1080/01421590500046924.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schön D. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schön D. Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302–11. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10964998.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berendzen JA, van Nes JB, Howard BC, Zite NB. Fire in labor and delivery: simulation case scenario. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(1):55–61. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e318201351b.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Corvetto MA, Hobbs GW, Taekman JM. Fire in the operating room. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(6):356–9. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e31820dff18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Soeren M, Devlin-Cop S, Macmillan K, Baker L, Egan-Lee E, Reeves S. Simulated interprofessional education: an analysis of teaching and learning processes. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(6):434–40. doi:10.3109/13561820.2011.592229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wayman KI, Yaeger KA, Paul J, Trotter S, Wise L, Flora IA, et al. Simulation- based medical error disclosure training for pediatric healthcare professionals. J Healthc Qual. 2007;29:12–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There’s no such thing as a “non-judgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006;1:49–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:1010–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McDonnell LK, Jobe KK, Dismukes RK. Facilitating LOS debriefings: a training manual: NASA; 1997. DOT/FAA/AR-97/6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare© – rater version. Cambridge: Center for Medical Simulation; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dismukes RK, Smith GM. Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44:350–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB. Which reality matters? Questions on the path to high engagement in healthcare simulation. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(3):161–3. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e31813d1035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dieckman P, Gaba DM, Rall M. Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc. 2007;2:183–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pisano G. Speeding up team learning. Harv Bus Rev. 2001;79:125–34.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Merriam SB. Androgogy and self-directed learning: pillars of adult learning theory. New Dir Adult Contin Educ. 2001;89:3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Raphael B, Wilson JP. Psychological debriefing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York Simulation Center for the Health Sciences, New York, NY, USA

    Demian Szyld MD, EdM

  2. Department of Emergency Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Demian Szyld MD, EdM

  3. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, USA

    Jenny W. Rudolph PhD

  4. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Jenny W. Rudolph PhD

Authors
  1. Demian Szyld MD, EdM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jenny W. Rudolph PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demian Szyld MD, EdM .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Anesthesiology Otolaryngology, and Structural & Chemical Biology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Adam I. Levine MD

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Samuel DeMaria Jr. MD , Andrew D. Schwartz MD  & Alan J. Sim MD ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szyld, D., Rudolph, J.W. (2013). Debriefing with Good Judgment. In: Levine, A.I., DeMaria, S., Schwartz, A.D., Sim, A.J. (eds) The Comprehensive Textbook of Healthcare Simulation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5992-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5993-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation