A comparison of rapid cycle deliberate practice and traditional reflective debriefing on interprofessional team performance.

BACKGROUND: In simulation-based education, debriefing is necessary to promote knowledge acquisition and skill application. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) and Traditional Reflective Debriefing (TRD) are based in learning theories of deliberate practice and reflective learning, respectively. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of TRD versus RCDP on acquisition of conceptual knowledge and teamwork skills among interdisciplinary learners in the pediatric emergency department. METHODS: One hundred sixty-four learners including emergency department attending physicians, fellows, nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, and respiratory therapists, participated in 28 in-situ simulation workshops over 2 months. Groups were quasi-randomized to receive RCDP or TRD debriefing. Learners completed a multiple-choice test to assess teamwork knowledge. The TEAM Assessment Tool assessed team performance before and after debriefing. Primary outcomes were teamwork knowledge and team performance. RESULTS: Average pre-intervention baseline knowledge assessment scores were high in both groups (TRD mean 90.5 (SD 12.7), RCDP mean 88.7 (SD 15.5). Post-test scores showed small improvements in both groups (TRD mean 93.2 (SD 12.2), RCDP mean 89.9 (SD 13.8), as indicated by effect sizes (ES = 0.21 and 0.09, for TRD and RCDP, respectively). Assessment of team performance demonstrated a significant improvement in mean scores from pre-assessment to post-assessment for all TEAM Assessment skills in both TRD and RCDP arms, based on p-values (all p < 0.01) and effect sizes (all ES > 0.8). While pre-post improvements in TEAM scores were generally higher in the RCDP group based on effect sizes, analysis did not indicate either debriefing approach as meaningfully improved over the other. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not demonstrate that either TRD versus RCDP was meaningfully better in teamwork knowledge acquisition or improving skill application and performance. As such, we propose Reflective Deliberate Practice as a framework for future study to allow learners to reflect on learning and practice in action.

Debriefer cognitive load during Traditional Reflective Debriefing vs. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice interdisciplinary team training.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive load impacts performance of debriefers and learners during simulations, but limited data exists examining debriefer cognitive load. The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive load of the debriefers during simulation-based team training (SbTT) with Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) debriefing and Traditional Reflective Debriefing (TRD). We hypothesize that cognitive load will be reduced during RCDP compared to TRD. METHODS: This study was part of a large-scale, interdisciplinary team training program at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Egleston Pediatric Emergency Department, with 164 learners (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, and respiratory therapists (RTs)). Eight debriefers (main facilitators and discipline-specific coaches) led 28 workshops, which were quasi-randomized to either RCDP or TRD. Each session began with a baseline medical resuscitation scenario and cognitive load measurement using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), and the NASA TLX was repeated immediately following either TRD or RCDP debriefing. Raw scores of the NASA TLX before and after intervention were compared. ANOVA tests were used to compare differences in NASA TLX scores before and after intervention between the RCDP and TRD groups. RESULTS: For all debriefers, mean NASA TLX scores for physical demands and frustration significantly decreased (- 0.8, p = 0.004 and - 1.3, p = 0.002) in TRD and mean perceived performance success significantly increased (+ 2.4, p < 0.001). For RCDP, perceived performance success increased post-debriefing (+ 3.6, p < 0.001), time demands decreased (- 1.0, p = 0.04), and frustration decreased (- 2.0, p < 0.001). Comparing TRD directly to RCDP, perceived performance success was greater in RCDP than TRD (3.6 vs. 2.4, p = 0.04). Main facilitators had lower effort and mental demand in RCDP and greater perceived success (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RCDP had greater perceived success than TRD for debriefers. Main facilitators also report reduced effort and baseline mental demand in RCDP. For less experienced debriefers, newer simulation programs, or large team training sessions such as our study, RCDP may be a less mentally demanding debriefing methodology for facilitators.