The use of the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) in a simulation-based team learning program for newborn resuscitation in the delivery room;Intérêt de la grille DASH pour l’évaluation de la qualité des débriefings : étude au cours d'un programme de simulation autour de la réanimation du nouveau-né en salle de naissance

Archives de Pediatrie

Volumn 24, Issue 12, 2017, Pages 1197-1204

  Durand, C ^a   Secheresse, T ^a,b   Leconte, M ^a  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE CHAMBÉRY   (France)

^b UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DELIVERY ROOM; EXERCISE; HUMAN; LEARNING; NEWBORN; RESUSCITATION; SELF EVALUATION; SIMULATION; STUDENT; EDUCATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SELF REPORT; SIMULATION TRAINING;

DELIVERY ROOMS; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RESUSCITATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SELF REPORT; SIMULATION TRAINING;

EID: 85035030165     PISSN: 0929693X     EISSN: 1769664X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arcped.2017.09.017     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Dieckmann, P., Using simulation for education, training and research. 2009, Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, Germany.
2. Rudolph, J.W., Simon, R., Dufresne, R.L., et al. There's no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc 1 (2006), 49–55.
3. ©). [On-line]. Disponible sur : https://harvardmedsim.org/dash-fr.php et https://harvardmedsim.org/_media/DASH_Manuel_utilisation_2010_VF_12-07.pdf. Consulté le 10 novembre 2015].
4. Brett-Fleegler, M., Rudolph, J., Eppich, W., et al. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare. Development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc 7 (2012), 288–294.
5. Rall, M., Manser, T., Howard, S., Key elements of debriefing for simulator training. Eur J Anaesthesiol 17 (2000), 516–517.
6. Bandura, A., Self-efficacy: the exercice of control. 1997, WH Freeman & Cie, New York.
7. Durand, C., Abraham, L., Secheresse, T., et al. Simulation haute-fidélité et sentiment d'efficacité personnelle. Application à l’évaluation d'un programme de formation à la réanimation du nouveau-né en salle de naissance. Rev Med Perinat 6 (2014), 134–143.
8. Rudolph, J.W., Raemer, D.B., Simon, R., Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Sim Healthc 9 (2014), 339–349.
9. Cheng, A., Grant, V., Dieckmann, P., et al. Faculty development for simulation programs: five issues for the future of debriefing training. Sim Healthc 10 (2015), 217–222.
10. Sullivan, P.B., Buckle, A., Nicky, G., et al. Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Med Educ, 12, 2012, 26.
11. Imperial College London. The London Handbook for Debriefing. Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing. [On-line. Disponible sur : https://www1.imperial.ac.uk/resources/B4F0E6A4-0A0B-4AF1-A39F-23B615EF7922/lw2222ic_debrief_book_a5.pdf. Consulté le 10 novembre 2015].
12. Runnacles, J., Thomas, L., Sevdalis, N., et al. Development of a tool to improve performance debriefing and learning: the paediatric Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) tool. Postgrad Med J 90 (2014), 613–621.