EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 22 / Numéro 4 (2021) Pédagogie Médicale, 22 4 (2021) 159-166 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 22, Number 4, 2021
Page(s) 159 - 166
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2021023
Published online 1 décembre 2021
  1. Haute Autorité de Santé et Société francophone de simulation en santé (Collectif). Simulation en santé et gestion des risques. Saint Denis : HAS, 2019 [On-line]. Disponible sur : https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-02/guide_methodologique_simulation_en_sante_et_gestion_des_risques.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  2. L’Her E, Geeraerts T, Desclefs JP, Benhamou D, Blanie A, Cerf C et al. Intérêt de l’apprentissage par simulation en soins critiques. SRLF, SFAR, SFMU, SOFRASIMS, 2019 [On line]. Disponible sur : https://www.srlf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/20190123_RPP_Intérêts_de_l_apprentissage_par_simulation_en_soins_critiques.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rall M, Manser T, Howard S. Key elements of debriefing for simulator training. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2000;17:516‐7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  5. Raemer D, Anderson M, Cheng A, Fanning R, Nadkarni V, Savoldelli G. Research regarding debriefing as part of the learning process. Simul Healthc 2011;7:S52‐57. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng A, Eppich W, Grant V, Sherbino J, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: A systematic review and meta analysis. Med Educ 2014;48:657‐66. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dufrene C, Young A. Successful debriefing. Best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: A literature review. Nurse Educ Today 2014;34:372‐76. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Garden A, Le Fevre D, Waddington H, Weller J. Debriefing after simulation-based non-technical skill training in healthcare: A systematic review of effective practice. Anaesth Intensive Care 2015;43:300‐08. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hall K, Tori K. Best practice recommendations for debriefing in simulation-based education for Australian undergraduate nursing students: An integrative review. Clin Simul Nurs 2017;13:39‐50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Levett-Jones T, Lapkin S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation debriefing in health Professional education. Nurse Educ Today 2014;34:e56‐e63. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sawyer T, Eppich W, Brett-Fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More than one way to debrief. A critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simul Healthc 2016;11:209‐17. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tannenbaum S, Cesaroli C. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors 2013;55:231‐45. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS). Development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc 2015;10:106‐15. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dreifuerst K. Using debriefing for meaningful learning to foster development of clinical reasoning in simulation. J Nurs Educ 2012;51:326‐33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rudolph J, Simon R, Dufresne R, Raemer D. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: A theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc 2006;1:49‐55. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dieckmann P, Molin Friss S, Lippert A, Ostergaard D. The art and science of debriefing in simulation: Ideal and practice. Med Teach 2009;31:e287–e294. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fanning R, Gaba D. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc 2007;2:115‐25. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rosenshine B. Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educ Leadersh 1986;43:60‐9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hattie J. Visible Learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta analyse on achievement. London: Routledge, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clarck R. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 2006;41:75‐86. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Magee M, Farhouk-Karoleski C, Rosen T. Improvement of immediate performance in neonatal resuscitation through rapid cycle deliberate practice training. J Grad Med Educ 2018;10:192‐97. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cory M, Colman N, Mc Cracken C, Hebbar K. Rapid cycle deliberate practice versus reflective debriefing for pediatric septic shock training. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019;20:481‐89. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lemke D, Fielder E, Hsu D, Doughty C. Improve team performance during pediatric resuscitations after rapid cycle deliberate practice compared with traditional debriefing: A pilot study. Pediatr Emerg Care 2019;35:480‐86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Anderson JR. Cognitive skills and their acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ed., 1981. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bandura A. Auto-efficacité. Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle. Bruxelles : Ed. De Boeck, 2007:10‐59. [Google Scholar]
  26. Higgins JPT, Savovic J, Page MJ, Sterne JAC. Revised cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). 2019 [On line]. Disponible sur : https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2. [Google Scholar]
  27. Monsieurs K, Nolan J, Bossaert J, Greif R, Maconochie IK, Nikolaou NI, et al.. European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2015. Section 1 Executive summary. Resuscitation 2015;95:1‐80. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T (eds). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, 2006:307‐37. [Google Scholar]
  29. Turner N, Leemput A, Draaaisma M, Oosterveld P, Ten Cate ThJ. Validity of the visual analogue scale as An instrument to measure self-efficacy in resuscitation skills. Med Educ 2008;42:501‐11. [Google Scholar]
  30. Napier F, Davies RP, Baldock C, Stevens H, Lockey A, Bullock I et al. Validation for a scoring system of the ALS cardiac arrest simulation test (CASTest). Resuscitation 2009;80:1034‐38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Secheresse T, Pansu P, Lima L. Focusing on explicit debriefing for novice learners in healthcare simulation: A randomized prospective study. Nurse Educ Pract 2021;51:102914. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim JH, Kim YM, Park SH, Ju EA, Choi SM, Hong TY. Focused and corrective feedback versus structured and supported debriefing in a simulation-based cardiac arrest team training: A pilot randomized controlled study. Simul Healthc 2017;12(3):157‐64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fraser B, Walberg H, Welch W, Hattie J. Synthesis of educational productivity research. Int J Educ Res 1987;11:145‐252. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang M, Haertel G, Walberg H. Toward a knowledge base for school Learning. Rev Educ Res 1993;63:249‐95. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hattie, J. Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hattie J. The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarsh Teach Learn Psychol 2015;1:79‐91. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instr Sci 2004;32:1‐8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Fraser K, Ayres P, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulation. Simul Healthc 2015;10(5):295‐307. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educ Psychol 2003;38:1‐4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Fraser K, Meguerdichian M, Haws J, Grant V, Bajaj K, Cheng A. Cognitive load theory for debriefing simulations: implications for faculty development. Adv Simul (Lond) 2018;3:1‐8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. HusebØ SE, Dieckmann P, Rystedf H, Soreide E, Friberg F. The relationship between facilitators’s questions and the level of reflexion in post simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc 2013;8:134‐42. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kihlgren P, Spanager L, Dieckmann P. Investigating novice doctors’ reflections in debriefings after simulation scenarios. Med Teach 2015;37:437‐43. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Dismukes R, McDonnel L, Jobe K, Smith G. What is facilitation and why use it? In: Dismukes R, Smith G. (eds). Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and opérations. Aldershot (UK): Ashgate, 2010:1‐12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cheng A, Morse K, Rudolph J, Arab A, Runnacles J, Eppich W. Learner-centered debriefing for healthcare simulation education. Simul Healthc 2016;11:32‐40. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Chung H, Dieckmann IB. It is time to consider cultural differences in debriefing. Simul Healthc 2013;8:166‐70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. [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.