ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2022
Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data and conversational diagrams.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing medical training with augmented reality and haptic feedback simulator: outcomes of a randomized controlled trial on lumbar puncture.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Exploring the Meta-debrief: Developing a Toolbox for Debriefing the Debrief.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2025Article
- Localizing and Tailoring the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare to Optimize Fit.Cureus · 2024Article
- Speech recognition technology for assessing team debriefing communication and interaction patterns: An algorithmic toolkit for healthcare simulation educators.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Testing reliability and validity of the Korean version of Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (K-DASH).Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- The Debriefing Assessment in Real Time (DART) tool for simulation-based medical education.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2023Article
- Correction: Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data and conversational diagrams.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2023Article
- Pilot study of the DART tool - an objective healthcare simulation debriefing assessment instrument.BMC medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDebriefing is an essential skill for simulation educators and feedback for debriefers is recognised as important in progression to mastery. Existing assessment tools, such as the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH), may assist in rating performance but their utility is limited by subjectivity and complexity. Use of quantitative data measurements for feedback has been shown to improve performance of clinicians but has not been studied as a focus for debriefer feedback.
methodsA multi-centre sample of interdisciplinary debriefings was observed. Total debriefing time, length of individual contributions and demographics were recorded. DASH scores from simulation participants, debriefers and supervising faculty were collected after each event. Conversational diagrams were drawn in real-time by supervising faculty using an approach described by Dieckmann. For each debriefing, the data points listed above were compiled on a single page and then used as a focus for feedback to the debriefer.
resultsTwelve debriefings were included (µ = 6.5 simulation participants per event). Debriefers receiving feedback from supervising faculty were physicians or nurses with a range of experience (n = 7). In 9/12 cases the ratio of debriefer to simulation participant contribution length was ≧ 1:1. The diagrams for these debriefings typically resembled a fan-shape. Debriefings (n = 3) with a ratio < 1:1 received higher DASH ratings compared with the ≧ 1:1 group (p = 0.038). These debriefings generated star-shaped diagrams. Debriefer self-rated DASH scores (µ = 5.08/7.0) were lower than simulation participant scores (µ = 6.50/7.0). The differences reached statistical significance for all 6 DASH elements. Debriefers evaluated the 'usefulness' of feedback and rated it 'highly' (µ= 4.6/5).
conclusionBasic quantitative data measures collected during debriefings may represent a useful focus for immediate debriefer feedback in a healthcare simulation setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.