Focused and Corrective Feedback Versus Structured and Supported Debriefing in a Simulation-Based Cardiac Arrest Team Training: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to compare the educational impact of two postsimulation debriefing methods—focused and corrective feedback (FCF) versus Structured and Supported Debriefing (SSD)—on team dynamics in simulation-based cardiac arrest team training.MethodsThis was a pilot randomized controlled study conducted at a simulation center. Fourth-year medical students were randomly assigned to the FCF or SSD group, with each team composed of six students and a confederate. Each team participated in two simulations and the assigned debriefing (FCF or SSD) sessions and then underwent a test simulation. Two trained raters blindly assessed all of the recorded simulations using checklists. The primary outcome was the improvement in team dynamics scores between baseline and test simulation. The secondary outcomes were improvements before and after training in team clinical performance scores, self-assessed comprehension of and confidence in cardiac arrest management and team dynamics, as well as evaluations of the postsimulation debriefing intervention.ResultsIn total, 95 students participated [FCF (8 teams, n = 47) and SSD (8 teams, n = 48)]. The SSD team dynamics score during the test simulation was higher than at baseline [baseline: 74.5 (65.9–80.9), test: 85.0 (71.9–87.6), P = 0.035]. However, there were no differences in the improvement in the team dynamics or team clinical performance scores between the two groups (P = 0.328, respectively).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in improvement in team dynamics scores during the test simulation compared with baseline between the SSD and FCF groups in a simulation-based cardiac arrest team training in fourth-year Korean medical students.

    loading  Loading Related Articles