COMPARISON OF TWO DEBRIEFING MODELS IN IN SITU SIMULATION FOR NURSES: RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56238/arev7n9-097Keywords:
Education, Simulation, Personal Satisfaction, Professional CompetenceAbstract
Objective: To compare the impact of the Structured and Supported Debriefing and Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation Healthcare Debriefing models for nurses on the measurable outcomes: cognitive skill acquisition, satisfaction, self-confidence, and facilitator performance. Method: A randomized trial with 34 nurses. The control group was led by the Structured and Supported Debriefing model, and the intervention group was led by the Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation Healthcare Debriefing model. The Simulation-Associated Debriefing Assessment Scale, the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare Scale, and the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale were administered. Results: There was significant improvement in cognitive ability in the control group for focus (p=0.0444), reflection (p=0.0277), and knowledge (p=0.0056). In the intervention group, there was significant improvement in embarrassment in front of colleagues (p=0.0126). There were no differences between groups in terms of satisfaction, self-confidence, and facilitator performance. Conclusion: Conducting debriefing without judgment enhances cognitive ability. Both debriefing models promote self-confidence and satisfaction and do not influence facilitator competence. Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry: RBR-8v4p3rs.
Downloads
References
1. Moreira ACMG, Oliveira TMN, Pereira MGN, Pincerati CLA, Menolli GA, Martins EAP. Development of clinical competence by undergraduate students in simulation based teaching: quasi-experimental study. Online Braz J Nurs. 2023;22:e20236629. https://doi.org/10.17665/1676
2. Rocco KMW, Pereira MGN, Almeida CL, Haddad MC, Martins EAP. Realistic simulation as a training strategy for the health team. Enfermeria (Montev.). 2023;12(2):e3329.doi: 10.22235/ech.v12i2.3329.
3. Pereira EVS, Pereira MGN, Rocco KMW, Oliveira TMN, Martins EAP. Avaliação do cenário simulado para atendimento com dispositivo extraglótico por enfermeiros. Contrib Cien Soc. 2024;17(9):01-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.55905/revconv.17n.9-071
4. Oliveira TMN, Dellaroza MSG, Martins EAP. Avaliação do debriefing na simulação realística da reanimação cardiopulmonar para profissionais socorristas. Int of Dev Res. 2021;11(05):e4707747081. doi: https://doi.org/10.37118/ijdr.21966.05.2021
5. Bassi MVM, Oliveira TMN, Rocco KMW, Pereira MGN, Ravagnani PAL, Menolli GA, et al. Comparação de dois modelos de debrienfings na simulação in situ para enfermeiros. Rev. Enferm. Contemp. 2024;4(5). doi: https://doi.org/10.56083/RCV4N5-213.
6. Santos MMCJ, Lima SF, Vieira CFG, Slullitel A, Santos ECN, Júnior GAP. In situ simulation and its different applications in healthcare: an integrative review. Rev. bras. educ. med. 2023;47(04). doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5271v47.4-2022-0196
7. Almeida CL, Silva DA, Martins EA. P. La simulación realista como estrategia de enseñanza-aprendizaje en la atención inicial a las víctimas de trauma. RIAAE. 2024;19(00):e024033. doi: https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.v19i00.18267
8. Mroczinski AL, Gomes DP, Rosales RH, Lino RLB, Garbuio DC. Effect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training on knowledge, satisfaction and selfconfidence in learning of nurses: a quasi-experimental study.Rev. Eletr. Enferm. 2023;25:74071. https://doi. org/10.5216/ree.v25.74071
9. Bresolin P, Martini JG, Maffissoni AL, Sanes MDS, Riegel F, Unicovsky MAR. Debriefing in clinical nursing simulation: an analysis based on the theory of experiential learning. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2022; 26(43):e20210050. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2022.20210050. PMID: 36043639.
10. Nascimento JSG, Oliveira JLG, Alves MG, Braga FTMM, Góes FSN, Dalri MCB. Debriefing methods and techniques used in nursing simulation. Rev Gaúcha Enferm. 2020;41:e20190182. doi: https://doi. org/10.1590/1983-1447.2020.20190182. PMID: 32294726
11. American Heart Association. Guidelines Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support, 2020. [Internet]. Disponível em: https://cpr.heart.org/-/media/cpr-files/cpr-guidelines-files/highlights/hghlghts_2020_ecc_guidelines_english.pdf
12. Nascimento JSG, Pires FC, Nascimento KG, Regino SG, Alves MG, Oliveira JLG et al. Analysis of a debriefing method for simulating cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an integrative review. REAEnf [Internet]. 2021;13. doi:https://doi.org/10.25248/reaenf.e8777.2021
13. Meguerdichian M, Bajaj K, Ivanhoe R, Lin Y, Sloma A, de Roche A et al. Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022;7(1):40, dezembro 2022. doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00236-x. PMID: 36503623. PMCID: PMC9743573.
14. Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS). Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(2):106-15. PMID: 25710312. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000072.
15. Conselho Regional de Enfermagem do Estado de São Paulo. Manual de Simulação Clínica para Profissionais de Enfermagem/ Conselho Regional de Enfermagem do Estado de São Paulo. - São Paulo-SP, 2020. Disponível em: https://biblioteca.cofen.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/manual-simulacao-clinica-profissionais-enfermagem.pdf
16. Bryant K, Aebersold ML, Jeffries PR, Kardong-Edgren S. Innovations in Simulation: Nursing Leaders' Exchange of Best Practices. Clin Simul Nurs. 2020;41:33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2019.09.002
17. Cowperthwait A. NLN/Jeffries Simulation Framework for Simulated Participant Methodology. Clin Simul Nurs. 2020;42:12-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2019.12.009
18. Ravagnani PAL, Oliveira TMN, Rocco KMW, Pereira MGN, Silva MVM, Almeida CL, et al. Cardiopulmonary arrest: structural dimensions of a high-fidelity simulated clinical scenario. EJCH [Internet]. 2023;23(9):e13114. doi:https://doi.org/10.25248/reas.e13114.2023.
19. Coutinho VRD, Martins JCA, Pereira MFCR. Construction and Validation of the Simulation Debriefing Assessment Scale (EADaS). Rev Enferm Ref. 2014;4(2):41-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12707/RIII1392
20. Almeida RGS, Mazzo A, Martins JCA, Baptista RCN, Girão FB, Mendes IAC. Validation to Portuguese of the Scale of Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(6):1007-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0472.2643. PubMed PMID: 26625990.
21. Simom R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare (DASH)© – Student Version, short form. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts, 2010.
22. Luiz FS, Vasconcellos LJ, Barbosa ACS, Paiva ACPC, Santos KB, Sanhudo NF et al. Papel do pensamento crítico na tomada de decisão de enfermeiros: revisão integrativa. EJCH [Internet]. 2020;(38):e1763. doi:https://doi.org/10.25248/reas.e1763.2020
23. Silva RDB, Pereira MGN, Rocco KMW, Oliveira TMN, Martins EAP. Simulação Clínica Como Estratégia De Ensino-Aprendizagem Para Profissionais E Estudantes De Enfermagem: Revisão Integrativa. Braz. J. Implantol. Health Sci. [Internet]. 2023;5(4):58–77. https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2023v5n4p58-77
24. Stagini S, Peres LVC. Percepções de docentes e discentes sobre feedback em estágios práticos no curso de medicina. Rev. bras. educ. med. 2021;45(3):e149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5271v45.3-20200444
25. Oliveira SN, Martini JG, Caravaca-Morera JA, Prado MLD, Canever BP, Bortolato-Major C, et al.Debriefing, a dialogical space for the development of reflective thinking in nursing. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2024;5(45):e20230041. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2024.20230041.en. PMID: 38324881.
