EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 22 / Numéro 4 (2021) Pédagogie Médicale, 22 4 (2021) 159-166 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 22, Numéro 4, 2021
Page(s) 159 - 166
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2021023
Publié en ligne 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]

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.