Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37936185›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Reflective learning conversations model for simulation debriefing: a co-design process and development innovation.

Emad Almomani, Jacqueline Sullivan, Omar Saadeh, Emad Mustafa, Natalie Pattison, Guillaume Alinier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

6 authors.

Emad AlmomaniHamad Medical Corporation, HMC-Qatar, PO Box: 3050, Doha, Qatar. Ealmomani@hamad.qa.
Jacqueline SullivanHamad Medical Corporation, HMC-Qatar, PO Box: 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Omar SaadehHamad Medical Corporation, HMC-Qatar, PO Box: 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Emad MustafaHamad Medical Corporation, HMC-Qatar, PO Box: 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Natalie PattisonUniversity of Hertfordshire-School of Health and Social Work, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK.
Guillaume AlinierHamad Medical Corporation, HMC-Qatar, PO Box: 3050, Doha, Qatar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth practitioners must be equipped with effective clinical reasoning skills to make appropriate, safe clinical decisions and avoid practice errors. Under-developed clinical reasoning skills have the potential to threaten patient safety and delay care or treatment, particularly in critical and acute care settings. Simulation-based education which incorporates post-simulation reflective learning conversations as a debriefing method is used to develop clinical reasoning skills while patient safety is maintained. However, due to the multidimensional nature of clinical reasoning, the potential risk of cognitive overload, and the varying use of analytic (hypothetical-deductive) and non-analytic (intuitive) clinical reasoning processes amongst senior and junior simulation participants, it is important to consider experience, competence, flow and amount of information, and case complexity related factors to optimize clinical reasoning while attending group- based post-simulation reflective learning conversations as a debriefing method. We aim to describe the development of a post-simulation reflective learning conversations model in which a number of contributing factors to achieve clinical reasoning optimization were addressed.

methodsA Co-design working group (N = 18) of doctors, nurses, researchers, educators, and patients' representatives collaboratively worked through consecutive workshops to co-design a post-simulation reflective learning conversations model to be used for simulation debriefing. The co-design working group established the model through a theoretical and conceptual-driven process and multiphasic expert reviews. Concurrent integration of appreciative inquiry, plus/delta, and Bloom's Taxonomy methods were considered to optimize simulation participants' clinical reasoning while attending simulation activities. The face and content validity of the model were established using the Content Validity Index CVI and Content Validity Ratio CVR methods.

resultsA Post-simulation reflective learning conversations model was developed and piloted. The model was supported with worked examples and scripted guidance. The face and content validity of the model were evaluated and confirmed.

conclusionsThe newly co-designed model was established in consideration to different simulation participants' seniority and competence, flow and amount of information, and simulation case complexity. These factors were considered to optimize clinical reasoning while attending group-based simulation activities.

Indexed as

Education, Nursing, BaccalaureateSimulation TrainingClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementHumansLearningPatient SafetyProblem SolvingClinical reasoningPost-simulation debriefingReflective learning conversations modelSBE

Identifiers

PMID37936185
PMCPMC10631178

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.