ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2022
Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study.
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. It is linked to trial NCT06624449 (The Effect of Hot and Cold Debriefing on BLS Competence and Reflection In Undergraduate Nursing Students.), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
The Effect of Hot and Cold Debriefing on BLS Competence and Reflection In Undergraduate Nursing Students.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Value of Eye-Tracking Augmented Debriefing in Medical Simulation-A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2025Trial
- A virtual patient-based training program to enhance clinical decision-making competencies in general practice residents: mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Managing Cytotoxic Extravasation: Simulation-based tutorials to improve quality of care and patient safety for chemotherapy patients.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2025Article
- When common cognitive biases impact debriefing conversations.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Measuring Stereotypes in Interprofessional Education: A Pilot High-Fidelity Simulation Study Among Postgraduate Nursing and Physician Students in a Spanish University.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Localizing and Tailoring the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare to Optimize Fit.Cureus · 2024Article
- Improving quality through simulation; developing guidance to design simulation interventions following key events in healthcare.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Debriefer cognitive load during Traditional Reflective Debriefing vs. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice interdisciplinary team training.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Data-informed debriefing for cardiopulmonary arrest: A randomized controlled trial.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) Healthcare Debriefing Tool is a cognitive aid designed to deploy debriefing in a structured way. The tool has the potential to increase the facilitator's ability to acquire debriefing skills, by breaking down the complexity of debriefing and thereby improving the quality of a novice facilitator's debrief. In this pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the tool on facilitators' cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality.
methodsFourteen fellows from the New York City Health + Hospitals Simulation Fellowship, novice to the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing Tool, were randomized to two groups of 7. The intervention group was equipped with the cognitive aid while the control group did not use the tool. Both groups had undergone an 8-h debriefing course. The two groups performed debriefings of 3 videoed simulated events and rated the cognitive load and workload of their experience using the Paas-Merriënboer scale and the raw National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index (NASA-TLX), respectively. The debriefing performances were then rated using the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) for debriefing quality. Measures of cognitive load were measured as Paas-Merriënboer scale and compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Measures of workload and debriefing quality were analyzed using mixed-effect linear regression models.
resultsThose who used the tool had significantly lower median scores in cognitive load in 2 out of the 3 debriefings (median score with tool vs no tool: scenario A 6 vs 6, p=0.1331; scenario B: 5 vs 6, p=0.043; and scenario C: 5 vs 7, p=0.031). No difference was detected in the tool effectiveness in decreasing composite score of workload demands (mean difference in average NASA-TLX -4.5, 95%CI -16.5 to 7.0, p=0.456) or improving composite scores of debriefing qualities (mean difference in DASH 2.4, 95%CI -3.4 to 8.1, p=0.436).
conclusionsThe PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing Tool may serve as an educational adjunct for debriefing skill acquisition. The use of a debriefing cognitive aid may decrease the cognitive load of debriefing but did not suggest an impact on the workload or quality of debriefing in novice debriefers. Further research is recommended to study the efficacy of the cognitive aid beyond this pilot; however, the design of this research may serve as a model for future exploration of the quality of debriefing.
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.