Comparison of student self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing in nursing simulation: A quasi-experimental study. (June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kang, Kyungja; Yu, Mi
• Is Part Of: Nurse education today. Volume 65(2018)
• Page Start: 67
• Page End: 73
• Publication Date: 2018-06
• Subjects: Debriefing -- Nursing -- Student -- Simulation; Nursing -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Education, Nursing -- Periodicals; Soins infirmiers -- Étude et enseignement -- Périodiques; Nursing -- Study and teaching; Periodicals; 610.7307
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.030
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0260-6917

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Student self-debriefing promotes self-confidence, helps to increase clinical performance, and is a more cost-effective method than is traditional instructor-led debriefing in simulation-based learning. Objectives: This study compared the effectiveness of debriefing—in terms of the problem-solving process, team effectiveness, debriefing assessment, and debriefing satisfaction—between an experimental group who received both student self-debriefing (SSD) and instructor debriefing (ID) and a control group who received only instructor debriefing. Design: This quasi-experimental study used a pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design. Settings: Two universities in South Korea. Participants: A convenience sample of 123 senior nursing students. The data were collected between 15 April and 9 June 2016. Methods: Differences in the problem-solving process, team effectiveness, debriefing assessment, and debriefing satisfaction between the SSD + ID group and the ID-only group were measured. Results: The SSD + ID group showed significant improvements in the problem-solving process ( t = 4.32, p < .001) and debriefing satisfaction ( t = 3.19, p = .002), but not in debriefing assessment ( t = 1.67, p = .097) or team effectiveness ( t = 1.84, p = .069) compared to ID-only group. Specifically, as the number of student sessions increased, we observed significant differences in problem-solving ability ( F = 9.44, p < .001), debriefing satisfaction ( F = 7.78, p < .001), and the subdomains of debriefing assessment: 'maintains an engaging environment' ( F = 3.78, p = .025), 'structures the debriefing in an organized way' ( F = 4.27, p = .016), and 'helps trainees achieve or sustain future performance' ( F = 3.17, p = .045). Conclusions: Our results can be used to develop guidelines for effective debriefing following simulation in nursing education. Specifically, combining SSD and ID in simulation debriefing and increasing the number of SSD sessions could help improve the problem-solving process and debriefing satisfaction among nursing students. Highlights: Nursing student self-debriefing (SSD) with instructor debriefing (ID) was effective. SSD with ID improved the problem-solving process and debriefing satisfaction. The results can inform guidelines for effective debriefing following simulation. It would be helpful to utilize SSD with ID in simulation programs.