ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Perceptions of Healthcare Professionals on Clinical Debriefing Structured by The Talk Method.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo understand healthcare professionals' perceptions regarding the application of the Debriefing TALK method in clinical practice, with emphasis on interprofessional communication and patient safety.
methodA qualitative action research study conducted with 12 healthcare professionals from secondary care in the Northeast region of Brazil. The educational intervention included dialogic lectures, communication skills training, clinical simulation, and structured debriefing sessions using the TALK method. Qualitative data were analyzed using the Collective Subject Discourse method, while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The study followed COREQ recommendations.
resultsThe TALK method functioned as a structuring device for reflective practice, promoting the reorganization of interprofessional interactions and reframing communication failures as opportunities for learning. Participants reported improvements in communication, team integration, and care planning, as well as the promotion of a psychologically safe and non-punitive environment. Reported barriers included time constraints, workload burden, variable engagement, and limited institutional support.
conclusionThe TALK Debriefing method proved feasible and well accepted, showing potential to enhance clinical practice through structured reflection, meaningful learning, and strengthened interprofessional communication, contributing to patient safety in real-world care contexts. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings suggest that the TALK method may support reflective and communication-centered practices in healthcare services, strengthening interprofessional collaboration and patient safety culture. IMPACT: This study advances knowledge on structured debriefing in real clinical settings, highlighting the TALK method as a pedagogical and organizational strategy capable of transforming communication failures into opportunities for collective learning and practice improvement. REPORTING
methodReported according to COREQ. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution was involved in this study.
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.