Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40135133›Full record

ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025

Evaluating facilitator adherence to a newly adopted simulation debriefing framework.

Lucas Smith, A J Kleinheksel, Matthew Tews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Lucas SmithMedical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
A J KleinhekselMedical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
Matthew TewsIndiana University School of Medicine, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Post-simulation debriefing is a critical component of the learning process for simulation-based medical education, and multiple frameworks have been established in an attempt to maximize learning during debriefing through guided reflection. This study developed and applied a rubric to measure facilitator adherence to the newly adopted Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) debriefing framework to evaluate the efficacy of current faculty development. Methods: A retrospective review of 187 videos using a structured 13-behavior rubric based on the PEARLS debriefing model was conducted of facilitator-learner debriefings following a simulated clinical encounter for medical students. The aggregate results were used to describe common patterns of debriefing and focus future faculty development efforts. Results: In total, 187 debriefings facilitated by 32 different facilitators were analyzed. Average scores for each of the 13 PEARLS framework behaviors ranged from 0.04 to 0.971. Seven items had an average of ≥ 0.77, ten averaged > 0.60 and two averaged < 0.20. Conclusions: Faculty adhered to some behaviors elicited by the PEARLS model more consistently than others. These results suggest that faculty facilitators are more likely to adhere to frameworks that focus on educational behaviors and less likely to adhere to organizational or methodological frameworks.

Indexed as

Faculty, MedicalFormative FeedbackSimulation TrainingClinical CompetenceHumansRetrospective StudiesStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID40135133
PMCPMC11931189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.