ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2023
Evaluation of a training programme for critical incident debrief facilitators.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Work-related stressful events and burnout experienced by residents and specialists in German neurology: prevalence, causes, and coping strategies derived from a nationwide survey.Neurological research and practice · 2025Article
- Standardized learner simulation for debriefer training through video conference.Korean journal of medical education · 2025Article
- Communication coaching for sonographers (CCS): Preliminary evaluation of a novel intervention to improve unexpected news delivery.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the reboot coaching workshops among urology trainees: A mixed method approach.BJUI compass · 2023Article
- Perioperative practitioners' experiences of critical incident debriefing: A qualitative explorative study.Journal of perioperative practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCritical incident debriefs are a commonly used occupational health tool for supporting staff after traumatic work incidents. However, there is a dearth of literature evaluating training programmes for debrief facilitators.
aimsTo evaluate a 5-day training programme to equip healthcare, social care and voluntary, community and social enterprise sector staff to act as post-incident peer supporters and debrief facilitators.
methodsA mixed-methods, single-arm, before-and-after study. Data were collected at baseline and post-training. The quantitative outcome measure was 'Confidence'; the sum of two items measuring confidence in (i) supporting peers after critical incidents and (ii) facilitating post-incident structured team discussions. At post-training, quantitative and qualitative feedback regarding experiences and perceptions of the training was also gathered.
resultsWe recruited 45 participants between October 2021 and January 2022. Confidence in supporting peers following incidents and facilitating post-incident structured team discussions increased significantly following the training, t(35) = -6.77, P < 0.001. A majority of participants reported they would do things differently because of the training and that they found the training relevant, useful and engaging. Summative content analysis of qualitative feedback indicated that participants (i) believed the role plays were an important learning tool and (ii) thought it was important that the trainer was engaging. Some participants would have preferred in-person delivery.
conclusionsParticipants valued training in post-incident peer support and debriefing skills. Organizations implementing post-incident support pathways could usefully include this training and ensure optimal uptake and engagement by (i) providing in-person and online delivery options and (ii) including role play as a learning technique.
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.