Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33663598›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2021

"A debriefer must be neutral" and other debriefing myths: a systemic inquiry-based qualitative study of taken-for-granted beliefs about clinical post-event debriefing.

Julia Carolin Seelandt, Katie Walker, Michaela Kolbe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. An integrated support model for lay health care workers to improve clients' retention in HIV care.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    Article
  4. Comparative analysis of routine clinical debriefings and incident reports: insights for patient safety and teamwork enhancement.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  5. A Scoping Review of Interprofessional Simulation-Based Team Training Programs.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julia Carolin SeelandtSimulation Center, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland.
Katie WalkerNew York City, Health + Hospitals Simulation Center, 1400 Pelham Parkway South, Building 4, 2nd Floor, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA.
Michaela KolbeSimulation Center, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. Michaela.kolbe@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6654-6370

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 100014_152822
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this study was to identify taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions about use, costs, and facilitation of post-event debriefing. These myths prevent the ubiquitous uptake of post-event debriefing in clinical units, and therefore the identification of process, teamwork, and latent safety threats that lead to medical error. By naming these false barriers and assumptions, the authors believe that clinical event debriefing can be implemented more broadly.

methodsWe interviewed an international sample of 37 clinicians, educators, scholars, researchers, and healthcare administrators from hospitals, universities, and healthcare organizations in Western Europe and the USA, who had a broad range of debriefing experience. We adopted a systemic-constructivist approach that aimed at exploring in-depth assumptions about debriefing beyond obvious constraints such as time and logistics and focused on interpersonal relationships within organizations. Using circular questions, we intended to uncover new and tacit knowledge about barriers and facilitators of regular clinical debriefings. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a comprehensive process of inductive open coding.

resultsIn total, 1508.62 min of interviews (25 h, 9 min, and 2 s) were analyzed, and 1591 answers were categorized. Many implicit debriefing theories reflected current scientific evidence, particularly with respect to debriefing value and topics, the complexity and difficulty of facilitation, the importance of structuring the debriefing and engaging in reflective practice to advance debriefing skills. We also identified four debriefing myths which may prevent post-event debriefing from being implemented in clinical units.

conclusionThe debriefing myths include (1) debriefing only when disaster strikes, (2) debriefing is a luxury, (3) senior clinicians should determine debriefing content, and (4) debriefers must be neutral and nonjudgmental. These myths offer valuable insights into why current debriefing practices are ad hoc and not embedded into daily unit practices. They may help ignite a renewed momentum into the implementation of post-event debriefing in clinical settings.

Indexed as

DebriefingImplicit theoriesQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID33663598
PMCPMC7931165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.