Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Debriefing Practices in Simulation-Based Education

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Clinical Education for the Health Professions

Abstract

In this chapter, we describe overarching categories that can be used to describe and analyze debriefing practices across a variety of settings: the people involved, the content discussed, the interaction patterns between participants, the physical characteristics, and the organizational context. We develop these categories from fictitious case examples and provide theoretical foundations for the categories, namely, through the lens of Activity Theory. Activity Theory emphasizes the motive-guided and goal-oriented human being, acting in a social and physical context to reach these goals. Understanding the interplay of motives, goals, and context of human action is important to optimize debriefing practice. Finally, we apply the categories derived to another fictitious case example to explore their analytical value.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Auerbach M, Cheng A, Rudolph JW. Rapport management: opening the door for effective debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2018;13(1):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bae J, Lee J, Jang Y, Lee Y. Development of simulation education debriefing protocol with faculty guide for enhancement clinical reasoning. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick MR, Mount MK. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 1991;44(1):1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortolato-Major C, Mantovani MF, Felix JVC, Boostel R, Silva A, Caravaca-Morera JA. Debriefing evaluation in nursing clinical simulation: a cross-sectional study. Rev Bras Enferm. 2019;72(3):788–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux M, Fleegler E, Cheng A, et al. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare: development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc. 2012;7(5):288–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng A, Palaganas J, Eppich W, Rudolph J, Robinson T, Grant V. Co-debriefing for simulation-based education: a primer for facilitators. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(2):69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng A, Morse KJ, Rudolph J, Arab AA, Runnacles J, Eppich W. Learner-centered debriefing for health care simulation education: lessons for faculty development. Simul Healthc. 2016;11(1):32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren MA, Rystedt H, Felländer-Tsai L, Nyström S, editors. Interprofessional simulation in health care. Materiality, embodiment, interaction. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann P. Simulation settings for learning in acute medical care. In: Dieckmann P, editor. Using simulation for education, training and research. Lengerich: Pabst; 2009. p. 40–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann P, Krage R. Simulation and psychology: creating, recognizing and using learning opportunities. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013;26(6):714–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann P, Gaba D, Rall M. Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(3):183–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann P, Reddersen S, Zieger J, Rall M. A structure for video-assisted debriefing in simulator-based training of crisis resource management. In: Kyle R, Murray BW (eds). Clinical Simulation: Operations, Engineering, and Management. Burlington: Academic Press; 2008. p. 667–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):e287–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann P, Patterson M, Lahlou S, Mesman J, Nystrom P, Krage R. Variation and adaptation: learning from success in patient safety-oriented simulation training. Adv Simul (Lond). 2017;2:21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann P, Birkvad Rasmussen M, Issenberg SB, Soreide E, Ostergaard D, Ringsted C. Long-term experiences of being a simulation-educator: a multinational interview study. Med Teach. 2018;40(7):713–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dismukes RK, Gaba DM, Howard SK. So many roads: facilitated debriefing in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(1):23–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong C. Personal communication in the context of a debriefing workshop. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamaki-Gitai R-L. Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. xiii, 462 p. p.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y, Kerosuo H, ProQuest (Firm). Activity theory and workplace learning. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing; 2007. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/abdn/detail.action?docID=320648

  • Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2015a;10(2):106–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppich W, Cheng A. How cultural-historical activity theory can inform interprofessional team debriefings. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015b;11(8):383–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flin RH, O’Connor P, Crichton M. Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate; 2008. x, 317 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Flin R, Patey R, Glavin R, Maran N. Anaesthetists’ non-technical skills. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(1):38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(2):126–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaba DM, Fish KJ, Howard SK, Burden AR, Gaba DM. Crisis management in anesthesiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2015. xxii, 409 pages

    Google Scholar 

  • Glavin RJ. Human performance limitations (communication, stress, prospective memory and fatigue). Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011a;25(2):193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glavin RJ. Skills, training, and education. Simul Healthc. 2011b;6(1):4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glavin RJ, Maran NJ. Integrating human factors into the medical curriculum. Med Educ. 2003;37(Suppl 1):59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges B. Medical education and the maintenance of incompetence. Med Teach. 2006;28(8):690–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husebo SE, Dieckmann P, Rystedt H, Soreide E, Friberg F. The relationship between facilitators' questions and the level of reflection in postsimulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(3):135–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iedema R, Mesman J, Carroll K. Visualising health care practice improvement: innovation from within. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013. 211 s. p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson E, Lindwall O, Rystedt H. Experiences, appearances, and interprofessional training: the instructional use of video in post-simulation debriefings. Int J Comput-Support Collab Learn. 2017;12(1):91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston S, Coyer FM, Nash R. Kirkpatrick’s evaluation of simulation and debriefing in health care education: a systematic review. J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(7):393–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang K, Yu M. Comparison of student self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing in nursing simulation: a quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;65:67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihlgren P, Spanager L, Dieckmann P. Investigating novice doctors’ reflections in debriefings after simulation scenarios. Med Teach. 2015;37(5):437–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SS, De Gagne JC. Instructor-led vs. peer-led debriefing in preoperative care simulation using standardized patients. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;71:34–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kun Y, Hubert J, Bin L, Huan WX. Self-debriefing model based on an integrated video-capture system: an efficient solution to skill degradation. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(2):362–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahlou S. Installation theory. The societal construction and regulation of behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont’ev AN. Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K. Defining the ‘field at a given time.’. Psychol Rev. 1943;50(3):292–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maestre JM, Rudolph JW. Theories and styles of debriefing: the good judgment method as a tool for formative assessment in healthcare. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2015;68(4):282–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell LK, Jobe KK, Dismukes RK. Facilitating LOS debriefings: a training manual. Moffett Field, CA, USA: Ames Research Center; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy P, Nestel D, Gormley GJ. Words matter: towards a new lexicon for ‘nontechnical skills’ training. Adv Simul (Lond). 2019;4:8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers IB, Myers PB. Gifts differing: understanding personality type. Mountain View: Davies-Black Pub; 1995. xxiii, 228 p. p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nystrom S, Dahlberg J, Edelbring S, Hult H, Dahlgren MA. Debriefing practices in interprofessional simulation with students: a sociomaterial perspective. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odreman HA, Clyens D. Concept mapping during simulation debriefing to encourage active learning, critical thinking, and connections to clinical concepts. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000445. [Epub ahead of print]

  • Oikawa S, Berg B, Turban J, Vincent D, Mandai Y, Birkmire-Peters D. Self-debriefing vs instructor debriefing in a pre-internship simulation curriculum: night on call. Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2016;75(5):127–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen H. Simulation in healthcare education. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2016. pages cm p.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rall M, Manser T, Howard SK. Key elements of debriefing for simulator training. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2000;17(8):516–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen MB, Dieckmann P, Barry Issenberg S, Ostergaard D, Soreide E, Ringsted CV. Long-term intended and unintended experiences after Advanced Life Support training. Resuscitation. 2013;84(3):373–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothmann S, Coetzer EP. The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA J Ind Psychol. 2003;29:1. 2003

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph JW, Simon R, Rivard P, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. Debriefing with good judgment: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007;25(2):361–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1010–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph JW, Foldy EG, Robinson T, Kendall S, Taylor SS, Simon R. Helping without harming: the instructor’s feedback dilemma in debriefing--a case study. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(5):304–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinwachs B. How to facilitate a debriefing. Simul Gaming. 1992;23(2):186–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson R, Sullivan S, Campbell K, Osman I, Statz B, Jung HS. Does a written tool to guide structured debriefing improve discourse? Implications for interprofessional team simulation. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(6):e240–e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer FF, Sharara-Chami R, Lakissian Z, Stocker M, Scott E, Dieckmann P. Cultural prototypes and differences in simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2018;13(4):239–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viggers S, Østergaard D, Dieckmann P. How to include medical students in your healthcare simulation centre workforce. Advances in Simulation. 2020;5(1):1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Morelius E, Goh SHL, Wang W. Effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing in simulation-based health professions education: a systematic review of quantitative evidence. Nurse Educ. 2019;44(3):E1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zottmann JM, Dieckmann P, Taraszow T, Rall M, Fischer F. Just watching is not enough: fostering simulation-based learning with collaboration scripts. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35(3):Doc35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Center for Human Resources and Education, Herlev and Getofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark

    Peter Dieckmann

  2. Department of Quality and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

    Peter Dieckmann & Hege Langli Ersdal

  3. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter Dieckmann

  4. Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Rana Sharara-Chami

  5. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway

    Hege Langli Ersdal

Authors
  1. Peter Dieckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rana Sharara-Chami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hege Langli Ersdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Dieckmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Debra Nestel

  2. King's College London, London, UK

    Gabriel Reedy

  3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

    Lisa McKenna

  4. Manchester Metropoli, Manchester, UK

    Suzanne Gough

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Dieckmann, P., Sharara-Chami, R., Ersdal, H.L. (2020). Debriefing Practices in Simulation-Based Education. In: Nestel, D., Reedy, G., McKenna, L., Gough, S. (eds) Clinical Education for the Health Professions. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6106-7_51-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6106-7_51-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6106-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6106-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation