ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2026
Implementation of a Structured Hot Debrief Tool in a Metropolitan ED: A Quality Improvement Study.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a structured 'hot debrief' tool, and its impact on team effectiveness, staff well-being and identification of system-level issues following critical events in two EDs.
methodsWe conducted a multi-site quality improvement study across two metropolitan Australian EDs from 2023 to 2025. A standardised hot debrief process was implemented following predefined critical events, with senior staff trained as facilitators. Staff perceptions were assessed using anonymous pre-, post- and final-implementation surveys, with quantitative data analysed descriptively. Completed debrief proformas from two 6-month trial periods were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to identify recurring themes related to team function, well-being and system issues.
resultsA total of 46 hot debriefs were conducted. In the final survey, 60 of 121 respondents (50%) had attended at least one debrief in the preceding 6 months. Amongst attendees, 98% reported that debriefs created a psychologically safe space, and 59 of 60 found them useful overall. Likert-scale responses indicated high perceived value, with most rating debriefs four or five out of five for team building, learning, issue identification and emotional processing. Thematic analysis identified five key system-level issues: interdepartmental communication, medication dosing in rare events, staffing and handover pressures, staff safety during behavioural emergencies and environmental and crowd-control challenges.
conclusionsA structured hot debrief tool was feasible and well accepted. It supported team reflection, staff well-being and identification of recurrent system issues. Further research is needed to assess sustainability and downstream impacts on staff well-being and patient safety.
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.