Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Medical Education

Volumn 48, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 657-666

  Cheng, Adam ^a   Eppich, Walter ^b   Grant, Vincent ^a   Sherbino, Jonathan ^c   Zendejas, Benjamin ^d   Cook, David A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Mayo Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EDUCATION; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; META ANALYSIS; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PROCEDURES; TEACHING; TIME; UTILIZATION; VIDEORECORDING; VOCATIONAL EDUCATION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; TEACHING; TIME FACTORS; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 84902074355     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12432     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach 2005;27:10-28.
2. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ 2010;44:50-63.
3. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc 2007;2:115-25.
4. Raemer D, Anderson M, Cheng A, Fanning R, Nadkarni V, Savoldelli G. Research regarding debriefing as part of the learning process. Simul Healthc 2011;6 (Suppl):52-7.
5. Arafeh JM, Hansen SS, Nichols A. Debriefing in simulated-based learning: facilitating a reflective discussion. J Perinat Neonat Nurs 2010;24:302-9.
6. Lederman LC. Debriefing: toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simul Gaming 1992;23:145-60.
7. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer D, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:1-7.
8. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Rivard P, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. Debriefing with good judgement: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesth Clin 2007;25:361-76.
9. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There's no such thing as a 'non-judgemental' debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgement. Simul Healthc 2006;1:49-55.
10. Dieckmann P, Molin Friss S, Lippert A, Ostergaard D. The art and science of debriefing in simulation: ideal and practice. Med Teach 2009;31:e287-94.
11. Chiniara G, Cole G, Brisbin K, Huffman D, Cragg B, Lamacchia M, Norman D. Simulation in healthcare: a taxonomy and a conceptual framework for instructional design and media selection. Med Teach 2013;35:e1380-95.
12. Dreifuerst KT. The essentials of debriefing in simulation learning: a concept analysis. Nurs Educ Perspect 2009;30:109-14.
13. Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor MS. Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organisations. J Appl Psychol 1979;64:349-71.
14. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek J, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach 2013;35:e867-98.
15. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek J, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hamstra SJ. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;3306:978-88.
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006-12.
17. Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 2007;298:1002-9.
18. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:1181-96.
19. Borenstein M. Effect sizes for continuous data. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation 2009;221-35.
20. Morris SB, DeShon RP. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychol Methods 2002;7:105-25.
21. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0. 2011. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index.htm. [Accessed 28 February 2013.]
22. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1988; 273-406.
23. LeFlore JL, Anderson M, Michael JL, Engle WD, Anderson J. Comparison of self-directed learning versus instructor-modelled learning during a simulated clinical experience. Simul Healthc 2007;2:170-7.
24. LeFlore JL, Anderson M. Alternative educational models for interdisciplinary student teams. Simul Healthc 2009;4:135-42.
25. Boet S, Bould D, Bruppacher HR, Desjardins F, Chandra DB, Naik VN. Looking in the mirror: self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises. Crit Care Med 2011;39:1377-81.
26. Leighton K, Scholl K. Simulated codes: understanding the response of undergraduate nursing students. Clin Simul Nurs 2009;5:e187-94.
27. DeMaria S Jr, Bryson EO, Mooney TJ, Silverstein JH, Reich DL, Bodian C, Levine AI. Adding emotional stressors to training in simulated cardiopulmonary arrest enhances participant performance. Med Educ 2010;44:1006-15.
28. Savoldelli GL, Naik VN, Park J, Joo HS, Chow R, Hamstra SJ. Value of debriefing during simulated crisis management: oral versus video-assisted oral feedback. Anesthesiology 2006;105:279-85.
29. Grant JS, Moss J, Epps C, Watts P. Using video-facilitated feedback to improve student performance following high-fidelity simulation. Clin Simul Nurs 2010;6:e177-84.
30. Byrne AJ, Sellen AJ, Jones JG, Aitkenhead AR, Hussain S, Gilder F, Smith HL, Ribes P. Effect of videotape feedback on anaesthetists' performance while managing simulated anaesthetic crises: a multicentre study. Anaesthesia 2002;57:176-9.
31. Sawyer T, Sierocka-Castaneda A, Chan D, Berg B, Lustik M, Thompson M. The effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing versus oral debriefing alone at improving neonatal resuscitation performance: a randomised trial. Simul Healthc 2012;7:213-21.
32. LeFlore JL, Anderson M. Effectiveness of two methods to teach and evaluate new content to neonatal transport personnel using high-fidelity simulation. J Perinat Neonat Nurs 2008;22:319-28.
33. Van Heukelom JN, Begaz T, Treat R. Comparison of post-simulation debriefing versus in-simulation debriefing in medical simulation. Simul Healthc 2010;5:91-7.
34. Xeroulis GJ, Park J, Moulton CA, Reznick RK, LeBlanc V, Dubrowski A. Teaching suturing and knot-tying skills to medical students: a randomised controlled study comparing computer-based video instruction and (concurrent and summary) expert feedback. Surgery 2007;141:442-9.
35. Walsh CM, Ling SC, Wang CS, Carnahan H. Concurrent versus terminal feedback: it may be better to wait. Acad Med 2009;84 (Suppl):54-7.
36. Welke TM, LeBlanc V, Savoldelli GL, Joo HS, Chandra DB, Crabtree NA, Naik VN. Personalised oral debriefing versus standardised multimedia instruction after patient crisis simulation. Anesth Analg 2009;109:183-9.
37. Hayden EM, Navedo DD, Gordon JA. Web-conferenced simulation sessions: a satisfaction survey of clinical simulation encounters via remote supervision. Telemed J E Health 2012;18:525-9.
38. Dine CJ, Gersh RE, Leary M, Riegel BJ, Bellini LM, Abella BS. Improving cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and resuscitation training by combining audiovisual feedback and debriefing. Crit Care Med 2008;36:2817-22.
39. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Heniford T, Scott DJ. Limited feedback and video tutorials optimise learning and resource utilisation during laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery 2007;142:202-6.
40. Dreifuerst KT. Using debriefing for meaningful learning to foster development of clinical reasoning in simulation. J Nurs Educ 2012;51:326-33.
41. Bond WF, Deitrick LM, Eberhardt M, Barr GC, Kane BG, Worrilow CC, Arnold DC, Croskerry P. Cognitive versus technical debriefing after simulation training. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:276-83.
42. Montori VM, Smieja M, Guyatt GH. Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:1284-8.
43. Reed DA, Beckman TJ, Wright SM, Levine RB, Kern DE, Cook DA. Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: quality of submissions to JGIM's Medical Education Special Issue. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:903-7.
44. McKinney J, Cook DA, Wood D, Hatala R. Simulation-based training for cardiac auscultation skills: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2013;28:283-91.
45. Chang JY, Chang GL, Chien CJC, Chung KC, Hsu AT. Effectiveness of two forms of feedback on training of a joint mobilisation skill by using a joint translation simulator. Phys Ther 2007;87 (4):418-30.
46. Wierinck E, Puttemans V, van Steenberghe D. Effect of reducing frequency of augmented feedback on manual dexterity training and its retention. J Dent 2006;34 (9):641-7.