Accès gratuit
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 20, Numéro 2, Avril 2019
Page(s) 91 - 100
Section Recherche et Perspectives
Publié en ligne 24 mars 2020
  1. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:i2‐10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Decker S, Fey M, Sideras S, Caballero S, Rockstraw L, Boese T, et al. Standards of best practice: simulation standard VI: the debriefing process. Clin Simul Nurs 2013;9:S26‐9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gardner R. Introduction to debriefing. Semin Perinatol 2013;37:166‐74. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors 2013;55:231‐45. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Savoldelli GL, Naik VN, Park J, Joo HS, Chow R, Hamstra SJ. Value of debriefing during simulated crisis management: oral versus video-assisted oral feedback. Anesthesiology 2006;105:279‐85. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Shinnick MA, Woo M, Horwich TB, Steadman R. Debriefing: the most important component in simulation? Clin Simul Nurs 2011;7:e105‐11. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cant RP, Cooper SJ. The benefits of debriefing as formative feedback in nurse education. Aust J Adv Nurs 2011;29:37‐47. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dreifuerst KT. The essentials of debriefing in simulation learning: a concept analysis. Nurs Educ Perspect 2009;30:109‐14. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc 2007;2:115‐25. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dismukes RK, McDonnell LK, Jobe KK, Smith GM. What is facilitation and why use it? In: Dismukes RK, Smith GM (eds). Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations. Ashgate: Aldershot (UK), 2000, p. 1‐12. [Google Scholar]
  11. Society for simulation in healthcare. Accreditation standards. 2016 [On-line]. Disponible sur : [Google Scholar]
  12. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Simulation program accreditation: Accreditation standards. 2019 [On-line]. Disponible sur : [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheng A, Grant V, Dieckmann P, Arora S, Robinson T, Eppich W. Faculty development for simulation programs: five issues for the future of debriefing training. Simul Healthc 2015;10:217‐22. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheng A, Morse KJ, Rudolph J, Arab AA, Runnacles J, Eppich W. Learner-centered debriefing for health care simulation education: lessons for faculty development. Simul Healthc 2016;11:32‐40. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dismukes RK, Gaba DM, Howard SK. So many roads: facilitated debriefing in healthcare. Simul Healthc 2006;1:23‐5. [Google Scholar]
  16. LaFond CM, Blood A. Targeted simulation instructor course for nursing professional development specialists. J Nurses Prof Dev 2016;32:284‐93. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Paige JT, Arora S, Fernandez G, Seymour N. Debriefing 101: training faculty to promote learning in simulation-based training. Am J Surg 2015;209:126‐31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Topping A, Boje RB, Rekola L, Hartvigsen T, Prescott S, Bland A, et al. Towards identifying nurse educator competencies required for simulation-based learning: a systemised rapid review and synthesis. Nurse Educ Today 2015;35:1108‐13. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nehring WM, Wexler T, Hughes F, Greenwell A. Faculty development for the use of high-fidelity patient simulation: a systematic review. Int J Health Sci Educ 2013;1:Art. 4. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hallmark BF. Faculty development in simulation education. Nurs Clin North Am 2015;50:389‐97. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux M, Fleegler E, Cheng A, et al. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare: development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc 2012;7:288‐94. [Google Scholar]
  22. Arora S, Ahmed M, Paige J, Nestel D, Runnacles J, Hull L, et al. Objective structured assessment of debriefing: bringing science to the art of debriefing in surgery. Ann Surg 2012;256:982‐88. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Feeney EJ. Quality feedback: the essential ingredient for teacher success. The Clearing House 2010;80:191‐98. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jonsson A, Svingby G. The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ Res Rev 2007;2:130‐44. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17:268‐74. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. The delphi technique in nursing and health research. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the cvi an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007;30:459‐67. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998;17:101‐10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stemler SE. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Pract Assess Res Eval 2004;9:1‐11. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach 2012;34:787‐91. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ahmed M, Sevdalis N, Paige J, Paragi-Gururaja R, Nestel D, Arora S. Identifying best practice guidelines for debriefing in surgery: a tri-continental study. Am J Surg 2012;203:523‐29. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.