In the Search for Evidence-Based Models to Facilitate a Post-Simulation Debriefing in Health Care: An Iterative Co-Creation Process.
Multala, Senja (2021)
Multala, Senja
2021
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2021052110313
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2021052110313
Tiivistelmä
Simulation-based education (SBE) is an effective method of teaching in healthcare. It can help to improve clinical judgement and non-technical skills like teamwork, prioritizing and leadership. Despite the recognition of debriefing as the most important phase of healthcare SBE there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of different debriefing methods and most debriefing models are merely theory-based.
The purpose of this thesis is to list empirically proven structured methods to lead a fruitful post-simulation debriefing in the context of health care. The aim is to benefit the Helsinki University Hospital’s Academic Simulation Centre and its instructors with the gained knowledge; to ease the instructors’ work and help them provide more homogenous simulation teaching in order to reach more coherent learning results. This thesis takes the form of an iterative co-creation process with a descriptive literature review. The main goal is to find scientific evidence on whether one debriefing framework is superior to another. The focus is on existing debriefing frameworks instead of their elements. Applying evidence-based practice in healthcare leads to better patient outcomes.
Several structured models and approaches for facilitating a post-simulation debriefing exist but actual research for the evidence of only four of them came up in the literature review. Three original studies about TeamGAINS debriefing model were found and one for each of the following: SHARP, Debrief Diamond and PEARLS. These four models and the evidence for them are presented in this thesis. It seems that most debriefing models are still mainly based on theory and few have beed studied in action. Even though supporting evidence for some aspects of the efficacy of the four debriefing models was found, it was limited to individual studies. The most evidence exists about the TeamGAINS framework. The lack of research on other debriefing methods however is not proof of a method’s superiority. Obvious need for comparative research between debriefing models and debriefer experience still prevails.
The purpose of this thesis is to list empirically proven structured methods to lead a fruitful post-simulation debriefing in the context of health care. The aim is to benefit the Helsinki University Hospital’s Academic Simulation Centre and its instructors with the gained knowledge; to ease the instructors’ work and help them provide more homogenous simulation teaching in order to reach more coherent learning results. This thesis takes the form of an iterative co-creation process with a descriptive literature review. The main goal is to find scientific evidence on whether one debriefing framework is superior to another. The focus is on existing debriefing frameworks instead of their elements. Applying evidence-based practice in healthcare leads to better patient outcomes.
Several structured models and approaches for facilitating a post-simulation debriefing exist but actual research for the evidence of only four of them came up in the literature review. Three original studies about TeamGAINS debriefing model were found and one for each of the following: SHARP, Debrief Diamond and PEARLS. These four models and the evidence for them are presented in this thesis. It seems that most debriefing models are still mainly based on theory and few have beed studied in action. Even though supporting evidence for some aspects of the efficacy of the four debriefing models was found, it was limited to individual studies. The most evidence exists about the TeamGAINS framework. The lack of research on other debriefing methods however is not proof of a method’s superiority. Obvious need for comparative research between debriefing models and debriefer experience still prevails.