ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Comparing two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks: a randomized cross-over simulation study.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPost-resuscitation debriefing (PRD) enhances individual and team performance in emergency care, thereby improving patient outcomes and provider well-being. Despite support from the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association, the optimal PRD framework remains undefined. This study compares how team members experience PRD when conducted using either the DISCERN or Post-Code Pause (PCP) debriefing framework in pre-hospital cardiac arrest simulations.
methodsIn a randomized cross-over study, 40 medical doctors participated in four advanced life support (ALS) simulation scenarios. Participants acted exclusively within their usual roles as team leaders, while the remaining team members performed standardized roles in accordance with the scenario scripts. Each participant experienced two DISCERN and two PCP debriefings, with the order randomized. The primary outcome was the total score on the Debriefing Experience Scale (DES), with item scores as secondary outcomes. Linear models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to account for repeated measures when comparing the mean scores between the debriefing frameworks.
resultsA total of 158 DES questionnaires were analyzed. Mean total DES scores were 4.15 (4.02; 4.28) for PCP and 4.16 (4.02; 4.29) for DISCERN (p = 0.93 for the comparison). These scores indicate a favorable debriefing experience for both frameworks. At the DES item level, no statistically significant differences were observed between frameworks, except for perceived physical comfort in the debriefing environment, which was rated significantly higher for DISCERN (DISCERN = 4.44 (4.27; 4.62), PCP = 4.13 (3.96; 4.30), p = < 0.0001).
conclusionDISCERN and PCP provide similarly favorable debriefing experiences following simulated cardiac arrest scenarios, with no significant difference in overall DES scores. These findings suggest that both frameworks can be implemented without compromising perceived debriefing quality. Further research should include more professionally diverse participant samples and assess long-term debriefing outcomes.
trial registrationClinical Trial Center UZ Leuven, S65846 September 2021.
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.