RESUMEN

Objetivo: La simulación interprofesional (SIP) es eficaz para aprender gestión de recursos de crisis. La modalidad de debriefing utilizada en la SIP puede influir en el rendimiento de los participantes y en su integridad psicológica. Se evalúa y compara el rendimiento de un debriefing estándar (DE) –colectivo– con un debriefing combinado (DC) –individual y colectivo– en cursos de SIP en escenarios que simulan pacientes con patología aguda y grave. Método: Ensayo controlado, aleatorizado y multicéntrico. Se aleatorizó el tipo de debriefing realizado (DE o DC) en las sesiones de SIP. El rendimiento del debriefing se evaluó con la escala TEAM (Team Emergency Assessment Measure). La calidad de la SIP fue valorada por los participantes con la escala DASH (Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare©). Resultados. Se aleatorizaron 40 cursos de SIP de los que se analizaron 30. Quince realizaron DE y 15 DC. Ambos grupos mejoraron entre la pre y la posprueba (p < 0,01), pero no hubo diferencias en el rendimiento global entre ambas modalidades de debriefing (p = 0,64). El DC obtuvo mejores resultados que el DE en la capacidad de liderazgo (p < 0,05), en la percepción de seguridad psicológica y en la experiencia de aprendizaje eficaz (p < 0,05). Conclusiones: Durante la SIP en situaciones de crisis, el debriefing mejora el rendimiento de los participantes, sin diferencias entre un DE y un DC. El DC podría ser más efectivo para mejorar la capacidad de liderazgo, la seguridad psicológica y la experiencia del aprendizaje

Objective: Interprofessional simulation (IPS) training is an effective way to learn crisis resource management. The type of debriefing used in IPS training may affect participants' performance and their level of psychological safety. We aimed to assess and compare performance after standard collective debriefing versus a combination of individual and collective debriefing ("combined" approach). Methods: Randomized, controlled multicenter trial. IPS sessions were randomized to have either standard or combined debriefing. Each team's performance in the IPS session was assessed with the Team Emergency Assessment Measure. The participants assessed the debriefing quality with the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare. Results: Forty IPS sessions were randomized, and 30 were analyzed, 15 using standard collective debriefing and 15 the combined individual–collective method. Teams' performance improved with both types of debriefing, based on pre-post testing (P<.01), and there were no significant differences in overall performance scores between the 2 types of debriefing (P=.64). However, the combined approach was associated with higher scores for leadership skills (P<.05) and psychological safety, and the participants' learning experience was better (P<.05). Conclusions: During IPS courses on crisis resource management, debriefing improves participants' performance, but similar overall results can be obtained with both debriefing methods. Combined debriefing might be more effective for improving participants' leadership skills and psychological safety and also provide a better learning experience

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Interprofessional simulation (IPS) training is an effective way to learn crisis resource management. The type of debriefing used in IPS training may affect participants' performance and their level of psychological safety. We aimed to assess and compare performance after standard collective debriefing versus a combination of individual and collective debriefing ("combined" approach). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized, controlled multicenter trial. IPS sessions were randomized to have either standard or combined debriefing. Each team's performance in the IPS session was assessed with the Team Emergency Assessment Measure. The participants assessed the debriefing quality with the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare. RESULTS: Forty IPS sessions were randomized, and 30 were analyzed, 15 using standard collective debriefing and 15 the combined individual-collective method. Teams' performance improved with both types of debriefing, based on pre-post testing (P<.01), and there were no significant differences in overall performance scores between the 2 types of debriefing (P=.64). However, the combined approach was associated with higher scores for leadership skills (P<.05) and psychological safety, and the participants' learning experience was better (P<.05). CONCLUSION: During IPS courses on crisis resource management, debriefing improves participants' performance, but similar overall results can be obtained with both debriefing methods. Combined debriefing might be more effective for improving participants' leadership skills and psychological safety and also provide a better learning experience.

OBJETIVO: La simulación interprofesional (SIP) es eficaz para aprender gestión de recursos de crisis. La modalidad de debriefing utilizada en la SIP puede influir en el rendimiento de los participantes y en su integridad psicológica. Se evalúa y compara el rendimiento de un debriefing estándar (DE) ­colectivo­ con un debriefing combinado (DC) ­individual y colectivo­ en cursos de SIP en escenarios que simulan pacientes con patología aguda y grave. METODO: Ensayo controlado, aleatorizado y multicéntrico. Se aleatorizó el tipo de debriefing realizado (DE o DC) en las sesiones de SIP. El rendimiento del debriefing se evaluó con la escala TEAM (Team Emergency Assessment Measure). La calidad de la SIP fue valorada por los participantes con la escala DASH (Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare©). RESULTADOS: Se aleatorizaron 40 cursos de SIP de los que se analizaron 30. Quince realizaron DE y 15 DC. Ambos grupos mejoraron entre la pre y la posprueba (p < 0,01), pero no hubo diferencias en el rendimiento global entre ambas modalidades de debriefing (p = 0,64). El DC obtuvo mejores resultados que el DE en la capacidad de liderazgo (p < 0,05), en la percepción de seguridad psicológica y en la experiencia de aprendizaje eficaz (p < 0,05). CONCLUSIONES: Durante la SIP en situaciones de crisis, el debriefing mejora el rendimiento de los participantes, sin diferencias entre un DE y un DC. El DC podría ser más efectivo para mejorar la capacidad de liderazgo, la seguridad psicológica y la experiencia del aprendizaje.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perception by naive patients, emergency services clinicians and nurses, of healthcare-induced pain for procedures performed frequently by accident and emergency services. METHODS: A prospective, three-part anonymous survey, given to caregivers and patients at arrival accident and emergency services. The primary endpoint was the a priori estimated pain score for 10 procedures performed frequently by accident and emergency services. The same estimation was performed with the 'willingness to pay' method (amount allocated a priori to avoid this pain). RESULTS: Fifty surveys were analyzed in each group, with a significant difference for pain perception between caregivers and patients concerning four procedures: local anesthesia, fracture or dislocation reduction, dressing change and abscess incision. Caregivers always overestimated pain scores compared with patients. No difference was noted for the remaining five procedures: intravenous line insertion and removal, urethral catheterization, wound suture and nasogastric intubation. CONCLUSION: Caregivers should be aware of the most feared procedures by patients to establish pre-emptive analgesia when possible, inform patients and achieve reassurance.

Asunto(s)