Maestre JM, Rojo RNE, Piedra L, del Moral I, Simon R

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 37-44
PDF size: 229.36 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Recent simulation literature reviews highlight the critical role of debriefing in the learning process. As a consequence, there has been an increase in the number of health and allied professionals that have been trained to conduct debriefings. However, as the number and scope of the activities increase, it is not always possible to find expert debriefers who are also experts in the specific content area. Therefore, it is increasingly common for educators to collaborate with content experts in various fields in healthcare, who often have no previous experience with simulation-based education. No references to the particular opportunities and challenges of this interaction has been found. Therefore, the objective was to propose a guide to: 1) describe the advantages of this type of collaboration, 2) discuss common challenges and 3) overcome specific challenges; also, to suggest future directions for research.

REFERENCES

1. Del Moral I, Maestre JM. A view at the practical application of simulation in professional education. Trends Anaesth Crit Care. 2013; 3: 146-151.

2. Sancho R, Rábago JL, Maestre JM, Del Moral I, Carceller JM. Integración de la simulación clínica en el programa formativo de la especialidad de Anestesiología y Reanimación. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2010; 57: 656-663.

3. McGaghie WC, Draycott TJ, Dunn WF, Lopez CM, Stefanidis D. Evaluating the impact of simulation on translational patient outcomes. Simul Healthc. 2011; 6: S42-47.

4. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, et al. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2013; 35: e867-898.

5. Issenberg BS, Scalese RJ. Best evidence on high-fidelity simulation: what clinical teachers need to know. Clin Teach. 2007; 4: 73-77.

6. Maestre JM, Szyld D, Del Moral I, Ortiz G, Rudolph JW. La formación de expertos clínicos: la práctica reflexiva. Rev Clin Esp. 2014; 214: 216-220.

7. Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Simul Health. 2014; 9: 339-349.

8. Opazo ME, Rojo E, Maestre JM. Modalidades de formación de instructores en simulación clínica: el papel de una estancia o pasantía. Educ Med. 2017; 18: 22-29.

9. Mukunda S, Shustak R, Szyld D, Del Moral I, Maestre J. Reflexiones sobre una rotación educativa en simulación médica. FEM. 2015; 18: 169-171.

10. Cheng A, Palaganas J, Eppich W, Rudolph J, Robinson T, Grant V. Co-debriefing for simulation-based education: a primer for facilitators. Simul Healthc. 2015; 10: 69-75.

11. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008; 15: 1010-1016.

12. Rudolph JW, Foldy EG, Robinson T, Kendall T, Taylor SS, Simon R. Helping without harming: the instructor’s feedback dilemma in debriefing: a case study. Simul Health. 2013; 8: 304-316.

13. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Rivard P, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. Debriefing with good judgment: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007; 25: 361-376.

14. Maestre JM, Rudolph JW. Theories and styles of debriefing: the good judgment method as a tool for formative assessment in healthcare. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2015; 68: 282-285.

15. Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux M, Fleegler E, Cheng A, et al. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare: development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc. 2012; 7: 288-294.

16. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006; 1: 49-55.

17. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011; 86: 706-711.

18. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med Teach. 2013; 35: e1511-1530.

19. Grant VJ, Robinson T, Catena H, Eppich W, Cheng A. Difficult debriefing situations: a toolbox for simulation educators. Med Teach. 2018; 40: 703-712.

20. Roussin CJ, Larraz E, Jamieson K, Maestre JM. Psychological safety, self-efficacy, and speaking up in interprofessional health care simulation. Clin Simul Nurs. 2018; 17: 38-46.

21. Eppich WJ, Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould JM, Siddall VJ, Cheng A. Structuring feedback and debriefing to achieve mastery learning goals. Acad Med. 2015; 90: 1501-1508.

22. Natal B, Szyld D, Pasichow S, Bismilla Z, Pirie J, Cheng A. Simulation fellowship programs: an international survey of program directors. Acad Med. 2017; 92: 1204-1211.

23. Zigmont J, Oocumma N, Szyld D, Maestre JM. Educator training and simulation methodology courses. In: Palaganas JC, Maxworthy JC, Epps CA, Mancini ME, editors. Defining excellence in simulation programs. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. pp. 548-559.

24. Rojo E, Maestre JM, Díaz-Mendi AR, Ansorena L, Del Moral I. Innovando en procesos asistenciales y seguridad del paciente mediante simulación clínica. Rev Calid Asist. 2016; 31: 267-278.

25. León-Castelao E, Maestre JM. Prebriefing en simulación clínica: análisis del concepto y terminología en castellano. Educ Med. 2019. Avance online.

26. Cheng A, Grant V, Huffman J, Burgess G, Szyld D, Robinson T, et al. Coaching the Debriefer. Simul Healthc. 2017; 12: 319-325.