EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 20 / Numéro 2 (2019) Pédagogie Médicale, 20 2 (2019) 91-100 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 20, Number 2, 2019
Page(s) 91 - 100
Section Recherche et Perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2020006
Published online 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 : https://www.ssih.org/Credentialing/Accreditation/Full-Accreditation. [Google Scholar]
  12. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Simulation program accreditation: Accreditation standards. 2019 [On-line]. Disponible sur : http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/documents/continuing-professional-development/accreditation-simulation-programs-e.pdf. [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. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [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. [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]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.