Table 8 Topics covered in papers
From: Debriefing strategies for interprofessional simulation—a qualitative study
Author, date | Primarily debrief focussed paper? | The Debriefers | The learners size of group of learners (see also ‘Population’ column in Appendix 2) | Debrief framework | Psychological aspect of debriefing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of debriefers | Profession of debriefers | |||||
Boet, 2013 [20] | Yes | Yes—0 vs 1 | ‘Formally trained’ debriefer. Profession not mentioned | 3 | ‘Within team debriefing’ vs advocacy/inquiry | Not mentioned |
Boet, 2014 [19] | No | Mentions very briefly (i.e. 1 debriefer, co-debriefers, within team debrief) | Mentions very briefly—i.e. could have one debriefer from each profession—as an option though not an opinion that this is right | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Mentions very briefly |
Boet, 2016 [21] | Yes | Yes—0 vs 1 | ‘formally trained’ debriefer—profession not mentioned | 3 | ‘Within team debriefing’ vs Advocacy/inquiry | Not mentioned |
Brown, 2018 [22] | Yes | 1 vs 2 | unknown | 6-9 students | Advocacy/Inquiry | Very briefly mentioned |
Cheng, 2013 [26] | Yes | 1 | ‘Novice debriefers’ nurses, respiratory therapists, physicians | 4–5 | Debriefing script specifically written based on advocacy-inquiry theory | Not mentioned |
Endacott, 2019 [27] | Yes | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Yes—multiple frameworks discusses | Mentions briefly |
Hull, 2017 [23] | Yes | 14/41 teaching sessions—1 debriefer 27/41 >/= 2 co-debriefers (always one lead debriefer) | When co-debriefed, i.e. more than one debriefed, had at least one physician and one nursing debriefer | 4–8 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
Kolbe, 2013 [31] | Yes | 2 | Psychologist and anaesthesiologists | 6 | Team-GAINS—Guided team self-correction, advocacy-inquiry and systemic constructivist debriefing | Yes |
Meny, 2019 [33] | No | 4 in large groups, 1–2 in small groups | Each involved specialty in large group (pharmacy, medicine, nursing, physical therapy), 1–2 of differing specialties (2 when available) | ‘Large’ 60 ‘Small’ 4–6 | Advocacy/inquiry | Does not mention |
Nystrom, 2016 [28] | Yes | 1 | ‘varying health professionals’ | 4–6 | Steinwachs debriefing | Yes |
Paige, 2019 [25] | Yes | 1–3 | 2 nurses and 2 doctors (one surgeon and one ‘internist’) | Does not mention | Not mentioned | Brief mention |
Park, 2016 [35] | Yes | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Does not mention | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
Poore, 2019 [9] | Yes | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Does not mention | ‘Debriefing Interprofessionally -Recognition and Reflection’ – main focus | Not mentioned |
Richmond, 2017 [34] | No | Small group self- debrief first. ‘At least 1’ for large group debrief | Not mentioned | 4-6 for small group self debrief. 15-20 in facilitated large group debrief | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
Van Schaik, 2015 [36] | No | 2 | One ‘MD’ and one RN | 10-14 | Not mentioned | Yes – discussion around anxieties around simulation and social identity affecting simulation |
Schere, 2019 [30] | No | Not mentioned | Not mentioned—does suggest that all professions should be involved in organising simulation | Does not mention | Yes – suggests planning specific structured questions to ask during debrief | yes |
Stockert, 2017 [24] | No | Yes – interprofessional debrief tea, (i.e. >1) in 51.1%, 40% had one or more debriefers from a single profession | Yes—advocates for interprofessional debriefing team | Does not mention | Not mentioned | Does not mention |
Sullivan, 2018 [29] | No | 3 (mixed faculty) | Trauma surgery, emergency medicine and emergency medicine nursing (all involved professions) | 5 | Yes—PEARLs | Does not mention |
Thompson, 2018 [42] | Yes | 3 | Trauma attending, emergency Medicine attending, emergency medicine nurse | 5 | TEAM debrief tool – adapted from PEARLS | Does not mention |
Yang, 2019 [32] | No | Not mentioned | Does not mention | Does not mention | Describe, analysis, application (DAA) based integrated interprofessional collaboration and team efficiency (IIT) model | Does not mention |