Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40307824›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2025

The expository phase of debriefing in clinical simulation: a qualitative study.

Giulio Fenzi, Carolina Alemán-Jiménez, Pedro Simón Cayuela-Fuentes, Gabriel Segura-López, Cesar Leal-Costa, José Luis Díaz-Agea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 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

6 authors.

Giulio FenziNursing Department, Catholic University of Murcia UCAM, Murcia, Spain.
Carolina Alemán-JiménezNursing Department, Catholic University of Murcia UCAM, Murcia, Spain.
Pedro Simón Cayuela-FuentesNursing Department, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Gabriel Segura-LópezNursing Department, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Cesar Leal-CostaNursing Department, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. cleal@um.es.
José Luis Díaz-AgeaNursing Department, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical simulation fosters reflective, experiential learning in a safe environment, allowing participants to learn from mistakes without patient risk. Debriefing, essential for reflection, is typically facilitator driven. The MAES© methodology (Self-Learning Methodology in Simulated Environments) shifts the focus to students, guiding them through six sequential phases: group identity creation, topic selection, objective setting, competency establishment, scenario design, simulation, and debriefing. MAES© introduces an expository phase in debriefing, where students present theoretical and practical content. The facilitator assumes a significant, yet secondary role, fostering increased student-led learning opportunities and, at times, enabling even trained real patients to co-facilitate the debriefing.

objectiveTo explore participants' experiences and perceptions regarding the expository phase of debriefing within the MAES© methodology framework, with specific focus on the student-led debriefing component.

methodA descriptive qualitative inductive approach with thematic content analysis was used. Open-ended questionnaires from 151 undergraduate final year and post-graduate nursing students, captured their experiences with the MAES© expository phase. Open-ended questionnaires allow participants to freely and anonymously express their perspectives and experiences. Responses were transcribed, independently coded, and analyzed using MaxQDA

resultsThe analysis revealed several key themes in student evaluations. Satisfaction with the methodology emerged strongly, with over one-third of participants expressing no desired changes. The reflective nature of the approach was prominently valued, along with its effectiveness for concept clarification and fostering collaborative learning. Participants particularly noted developmental outcomes in communication competencies and technical skills, while appreciating the motivational learning environment and evidence-based focus. The suggested improvements focused on three main aspects: increased session dynamism, a greater use of visual and interactive elements, and reduced dependence on slide-based presentations.

conclusionThe study highlights the value of the expository phase in the MAES© methodology, emphasizing its effectiveness in clarifying concepts, fostering collaboration, and developing technical and communication skills. It also promotes student autonomy through active engagement. However, participants suggested improvements, such as greater dynamism, personalization, and varied presentation methods using videos, skill stations or patient's-oriented debriefing. Overall, the expository phase proves to be a valuable pedagogical tool with potential for broader application in simulation-based learning and other debriefing models. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Clinical simulation, debriefing, expository phaseMAESPeer-led debriefingSelf-directed learningStudent-centered simulation

Identifiers

PMID40307824
PMCPMC12042579

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.