ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024
Debriefer cognitive load during Traditional Reflective Debriefing vs. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice interdisciplinary team training.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCognitive load impacts performance of debriefers and learners during simulations, but limited data exists examining debriefer cognitive load. The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive load of the debriefers during simulation-based team training (SbTT) with Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) debriefing and Traditional Reflective Debriefing (TRD). We hypothesize that cognitive load will be reduced during RCDP compared to TRD.
methodsThis study was part of a large-scale, interdisciplinary team training program at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Egleston Pediatric Emergency Department, with 164 learners (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, and respiratory therapists (RTs)). Eight debriefers (main facilitators and discipline-specific coaches) led 28 workshops, which were quasi-randomized to either RCDP or TRD. Each session began with a baseline medical resuscitation scenario and cognitive load measurement using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), and the NASA TLX was repeated immediately following either TRD or RCDP debriefing. Raw scores of the NASA TLX before and after intervention were compared. ANOVA tests were used to compare differences in NASA TLX scores before and after intervention between the RCDP and TRD groups.
resultsFor all debriefers, mean NASA TLX scores for physical demands and frustration significantly decreased (- 0.8, p = 0.004 and - 1.3, p = 0.002) in TRD and mean perceived performance success significantly increased (+ 2.4, p < 0.001). For RCDP, perceived performance success increased post-debriefing (+ 3.6, p < 0.001), time demands decreased (- 1.0, p = 0.04), and frustration decreased (- 2.0, p < 0.001). Comparing TRD directly to RCDP, perceived performance success was greater in RCDP than TRD (3.6 vs. 2.4, p = 0.04). Main facilitators had lower effort and mental demand in RCDP and greater perceived success (p < 0.001).
conclusionRCDP had greater perceived success than TRD for debriefers. Main facilitators also report reduced effort and baseline mental demand in RCDP. For less experienced debriefers, newer simulation programs, or large team training sessions such as our study, RCDP may be a less mentally demanding debriefing methodology for facilitators.
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.