Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40947109›Full record

ArticleThe clinical teacher2025

Understanding Perceptions of the Postsimulation Debriefing Learning Environment in Paediatric Trainees.

Sarah Hoolahan, Anthony Breitbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The clinical teacher, 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

2 authors.

Sarah HoolahanUniversity of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0002-4023-1252
Anthony BreitbachSaint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0445-1741

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSimulation within medical education develops knowledge, skills and attitudes without risk of patient harm. Debriefing, a two-way feedback process between learner and facilitator, consolidates learning through a reflective process. Creating a safe learning environment where learners feel comfortable exposing knowledge gaps is essential. Different learners likely perceive the learning environment in unique ways. Although facilitators may strive to create psychological safety, educators and learners can interpret feedback interactions in different ways. The aim of this research was to provide insight into how trainees perceived the postsimulation learning environment.

methodsPurposeful, comparison-focused sampling was utilised to recruit participants with varying self-reported levels of ability, according to the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, and contrasting perspectives of the debrief. Following random stratification of anonymised survey responses, eight learners participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed and inductively analysed following a six-step reflexive thematic analysis process.

resultsFour themes were revealed, which portrayed learner perceptions of the debrief. Feelings and emotions associated with debriefing were both positive and negative, although a fear of judgement prevailed. Safe and unsafe learning environments were described. Feedback was perceived as polite, but not always honest. The impact of both imposter syndrome and cultural norms emerged as unexpected findings. Differences were observed in how those with more experience responded to feedback compared with less experienced colleagues.

conclusionAlthough learners perceived strengths and weaknesses within the postsimulation learning environment, maintaining psychological safety whilst providing honest and credible feedback remains a challenge for educators.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackLearningPediatricsSimulation TrainingStudents, MedicalAdultClinical CompetenceFeedbackFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalepaediatric traineesperceptionspostsimulation debriefingpsychological safety

Identifiers

PMID40947109
PMCPMC12433739

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.