RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There have been increasing calls for awareness and action related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in simulation but a lack of practical guidance for how simulation delivery teams (SDTs) might move towards meaningful transformation. The gap between academic conversations about EDI and how to practically impact SDT attitudes, behaviors, and performance remains considerable. We designed a conversational tool, the SIM-EDI, to bridge the gap between theory and practice for SDTs by enhancing reflexivity and studied its impact locally. METHODS: We engaged in a collaborative autoethnography to explore EDI within our emergency department SDT shortly after implementing the SIM-EDI. The 12-month ethnography is informed by our team's collection and analysis of data about ourselves and our own experiences using the tool. Data included serial interviews, field notes from simulations and SDT meetings, SDT documents, and self-reflections. RESULTS: We found the SIM-EDI tool could be implemented with a team with a high level of readiness. Use of the tool had several meaningful impacts including enhanced team reflexivity, normalization of conversations related to EDI and increased confidence to engage in EDI conversations with participants. Key themes throughout the process included (1) individual and team growth, (2) fear of "getting it wrong", and (3) tension between bias towards action and need for slow reflection. CONCLUSION: The SIM-EDI tool can effectively promote reflexivity among faculty in an emergency department simulation program. The tool is easy to use and implement, impacts attitudes and behaviors, and facilitates individual and team growth.
RESUMEN
Aim: Scripted debriefing tools may improve the performance of novices debriefing in resuscitation courses, but this has not previously been measured. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a script on the quality of debriefs in a statewide paediatric resuscitation course. Methods: This cluster-randomised controlled trial compared scripted debriefing (intervention) versus non-scripted debriefing (control) for participants in a paediatric resuscitation course. The trial was conducted across participating sites in Queensland, Australia, from November 2017 to February 2020. Debriefing quality was measured using the Observational Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) tool. The OSAD tool rates 8 domains that comprise the elements of an ideal debrief. OSAD scores between scripted and non-scripted groups were compared, overall and after stratification by debriefer experience and site size. Results: Seventy debriefings occurred across 19 sites (intervention, n = 34, control n = 36). There was a statistically significant increase in total OSAD scores in the scripted group, compared to non-scripted (mean difference (MD) = 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-6.2, p = 0.01). The categories of 'reflection' and 'analysis' had the greatest difference in OSAD scores in the scripted group (MD = 0.8, 95%CI 0.2-1.3, p = 0.005; MD = 0.6, 95%CI 0.2-1.0, p = 0.007). After stratification, overall OSAD scores improved for novices (MD = 4.1, 95%CI 0.5-7.7, p = 0.03) and large centres (MD = 5.2, 95%CI 1.1-9.2, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Providing debriefing scripts to faculty facilitating simulated paediatric resuscitation scenarios improved the quality of debriefing, especially for novices and those at large sites. The development and provision of debriefing scripts for large-scale paediatric resuscitation courses should be considered.