Effective debriefings in the clinical setting: a pilot study to test the impact of an evidence based debriefing app on anesthesia care providers' performance.

Background: Debriefing enhances team learning, performance, and patient safety. Despite its benefits, it's underused. To address this, we developed an evidence-based debriefing app. Methods: This pilot study, conducted at a Swiss hospital, evaluated team performance during two anesthesia inductions using the Team Performance Scale (TPS). Following the first induction, teams engaged with the Zurich Debriefing App, with debriefing sessions meticulously recorded for subsequent evaluation. To mitigate bias, raters underwent comprehensive TPS training. The debriefings were analyzed through the DE-CODE framework. We utilized paired t-tests to examine performance improvements and linear regressions to assess the impact of reflective statements on performance, moderated by psychological safety. Results: Team performance significantly improved from the first to the second induction (t (9) = -2.512, p = 0.033). Senior physicians' (n = 8) reflective statements predicted post-assessment TPS scores (R 2 = 0.732, p = 0.061), while consultants (n = 7) and nurse anesthetists (n = 10) did not. Interaction analysis revealed no moderation effects, but a main effect indicated the significance of senior physicians' reflective statements. Conclusion: This pilot study confirms the efficacy of the evidence-based debriefing app in enhancing anesthesia team performance. Senior physicians' reflective statements positively influenced performance; however, no moderation effects were observed. The study highlights the potential of debriefing apps to streamline and enhance team debriefing processes, with significant implications for improving clinical practice and patient safety. Further research is needed to validate these findings on a larger scale and optimize the integration of debriefing into routine clinical practice.

Debriefing Methods for Simulation in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Debriefing is a critical component in most simulation experiences. With the growing number of debriefing concepts, approaches, and tools, we need to understand how to debrief most effectively because there is little empiric evidence to guide us in their use. This systematic review explores the current literature on debriefing in healthcare simulation education to understand the evidence behind practice and clarify gaps in the literature. The PICO question for this review was defined as "In healthcare providers [P], does the use of one debriefing or feedback intervention [I], compared to a different debriefing or feedback intervention [C], improve educational and clinical outcomes [O] in simulation-based education?" We included 70 studies in our final review and found that our current debriefing strategies, frameworks, and techniques are not based on robust empirical evidence. Based on this, we highlight future research needs.

How to enrich team research in healthcare by considering five theoretical perspectives.

The aim of this paper is to inspire team research to apply diverse and unconventional perspectives to study team dynamics and performance in healthcare settings. To illustrate that using multiple perspectives can yield valuable insights, we examine a segment of a team interaction during a heart-surgery, using five distinct interdisciplinary perspectives known from small group research: the psychodynamic, functional, conflict-power-status, temporal, and social identity perspectives. We briefly describe each theoretical perspective, discuss its application to study healthcare teams, and present possible research questions for the segment at hand using the respective perspective. We also highlight the benefits and challenges associated with employing these diverse approaches and explore how they can be integrated to analyze team processes in health care. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses. We also point to further research avenues and highlight the benefits associated with employing these diverse approaches. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses.

Helping healthcare teams to debrief effectively: associations of debriefers' actions and participants' reflections during team debriefings.

BACKGROUND: Debriefings help teams learn quickly and treat patients safely. However, many clinicians and educators report to struggle with leading debriefings. Little empirical knowledge on optimal debriefing processes is available. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential of specific types of debriefer communication to trigger participants' reflection in debriefings. METHODS: In this prospective observational, microanalytic interaction analysis study, we observed clinicians while they participated in healthcare team debriefings following three high-risk anaesthetic scenarios during simulation-based team training. Using the video-recorded debriefings and INTERACT coding software, we applied timed, event-based coding with DE-CODE, a coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions. We used lag sequential analysis to explore the relationship between what debriefers and participants said. We hypothesised that combining advocacy (ie, stating an observation followed by an opinion) with an open-ended question would be associated with participants' verbalisation of a mental model as a particular form of reflection. RESULTS: The 50 debriefings with overall 114 participants had a mean duration of 49.35 min (SD=8.89 min) and included 18 486 behavioural transitions. We detected significant behavioural linkages from debriefers' observation to debriefers' opinion (z=9.85, p<0.001), from opinion to debriefers' open-ended question (z=9.52, p<0.001) and from open-ended question to participants' mental model (z=7.41, p<0.001), supporting our hypothesis. Furthermore, participants shared mental models after debriefers paraphrased their statements and asked specific questions but not after debriefers appreciated their actions without asking any follow-up questions. Participants also triggered reflection among themselves, particularly by sharing personal anecdotes. CONCLUSION: When debriefers pair their observations and opinions with open-ended questions, paraphrase participants' statements and ask specific questions, they help participants reflect during debriefings.

Exposure to incivility does not hinder speaking up: a randomised controlled high-fidelity simulation-based study.

BACKGROUND: Speaking up with concerns is critical for patient safety. We studied whether witnessing a civil (i.e. polite, respectful) response to speaking up would increase the occurrence of further speaking up by hospital staff members as compared with witnessing a pseudo-civil (i.e. vague and slightly dismissive) or rude response. METHODS: In this RCT in a single, large academic teaching hospital, a single simulated basic life support scenario was designed to elicit standardised opportunities to speak up. Participants in teams of two or three were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which the degree of civility in reacting to speaking up was manipulated by an embedded simulated person. Speaking up behaviour was assessed by behaviour coding of the video recordings of the team interactions by applying 10 codes using The Observer XT 14.1. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling. RESULTS: The sample included 125 interprofessional hospital staff members (82 [66%] women, 43 [34%] men). Participants were more likely to speak up when they felt psychologically safe (γ=0.47; standard error [se]=0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.85; P=0.017). Participants were more likely to speak up in the rude condition than in the other conditions (γ=0.28; se=0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P=0.019). Across conditions, participants spoke up most frequently by structuring inquiry (n=289, 31.52%), proactive (n=240, 26.17%), and reactive (n=148, 16.14%) instruction statements, and gestures (n=139, 15.16%). CONCLUSION: Our study challenges current assumptions about the interplay of civility and speaking up behaviour in healthcare.

Associations of form and function of speaking up in anaesthesia: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Speaking up with concerns in the interest of patient safety has been identified as important for the quality and safety of patient care. The study objectives were to identify how anaesthesia care providers speak up, how their colleagues react to it, whether there is an association among speak up form and reaction, and how this reaction is associated with further speak up. METHODS: Data were collected over 3 months at a single centre in Switzerland by observing 49 anaesthesia care providers while performing induction of general anaesthesia in 53 anaesthesia teams. Speaking up and reactions to speaking up were measured by event-based behaviour coding. RESULTS: Instances of speaking up were classified as opinion (59.6%), oblique hint (37.2%), inquiry (30.7%), and observation (16.7%). Most speak up occurred as a combination of different forms. Reactions to speak up included short approval (36.5%), elaboration (35.9%), no verbal reaction (26.3%), or rejection (1.28%). Speaking up was implemented in 89.1% of cases. Inquiry was associated with an increased likelihood of recipients discussing the respective issue (odds ratio [OR]=13.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-31.5; P<0.0001) and with a decreased likelihood of implementing the speak up during the same induction (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88; P=0.03). Reacting with elaboration to the first speak up was associated with decreased further speak up during the same induction (relative risk [RR]=0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.83; P=0.018). CONCLUSION: Our study provides insights into the form and function of speaking up in clinical environments and points to a perceived dilemma of speaking up via questions.

"A debriefer must be neutral" and other debriefing myths: a systemic inquiry-based qualitative study of taken-for-granted beliefs about clinical post-event debriefing.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to identify taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions about use, costs, and facilitation of post-event debriefing. These myths prevent the ubiquitous uptake of post-event debriefing in clinical units, and therefore the identification of process, teamwork, and latent safety threats that lead to medical error. By naming these false barriers and assumptions, the authors believe that clinical event debriefing can be implemented more broadly. METHODS: We interviewed an international sample of 37 clinicians, educators, scholars, researchers, and healthcare administrators from hospitals, universities, and healthcare organizations in Western Europe and the USA, who had a broad range of debriefing experience. We adopted a systemic-constructivist approach that aimed at exploring in-depth assumptions about debriefing beyond obvious constraints such as time and logistics and focused on interpersonal relationships within organizations. Using circular questions, we intended to uncover new and tacit knowledge about barriers and facilitators of regular clinical debriefings. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a comprehensive process of inductive open coding. RESULTS: In total, 1508.62 min of interviews (25 h, 9 min, and 2 s) were analyzed, and 1591 answers were categorized. Many implicit debriefing theories reflected current scientific evidence, particularly with respect to debriefing value and topics, the complexity and difficulty of facilitation, the importance of structuring the debriefing and engaging in reflective practice to advance debriefing skills. We also identified four debriefing myths which may prevent post-event debriefing from being implemented in clinical units. CONCLUSION: The debriefing myths include (1) debriefing only when disaster strikes, (2) debriefing is a luxury, (3) senior clinicians should determine debriefing content, and (4) debriefers must be neutral and nonjudgmental. These myths offer valuable insights into why current debriefing practices are ad hoc and not embedded into daily unit practices. They may help ignite a renewed momentum into the implementation of post-event debriefing in clinical settings.

Assessing Perceptions of Teamwork Quality Among Perioperative Team Members.

Successful surgery depends on collaboration and mutual trust among interdisciplinary team members. We compared teamwork quality as perceived by surgeons, anesthesia care providers, and perioperative nurses using two surveys in the same hospital. The general survey sent to the homes of the OR personnel revealed teamwork climate scores in the medium to high range. Attending surgeons were significantly more satisfied than perioperative nurses and resident surgeons; anesthesiologists were significantly more satisfied than perioperative nurses. A second single-item survey administered immediately after elective open abdominal surgical procedures also showed relatively high satisfaction with teamwork. Results of the second survey, however, showed that attending surgeons were significantly less satisfied than the members of all the other professions, and perioperative nurses were significantly more satisfied than the members of all the other professions. We conclude that general surveys about teamwork quality among members of surgical teams may not necessarily reflect teamwork quality during actual surgical procedures.

DE-CODE: a coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions.

Debriefings are crucial for learning during simulation-based training (SBT). Although the quality of debriefings is very important for SBT, few studies have examined actual debriefing conversations. Investigating debriefing conversations is important for identifying typical debriefer-learner interaction patterns, obtaining insights into associations between debriefers' communication and learners' reflection and comparing different debriefing approaches. We aim at contributing to the science of debriefings by developing DE-CODE, a valid and reliable coding scheme for assessing debriefers' and learners' communication in debriefings. It is applicable for both direct, on-site observations and video-based coding. Methods: The coding scheme was developed both deductively and inductively from literature on team learning and debriefing and observing debriefings during SBT, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa. DE-CODE was tested for both live and video-based coding. Results: DE-CODE consists of 32 codes for debriefers' communication and 15 codes for learners' communication. For live coding, coders achieved good inter-rater reliabilities with the exception of four codes for debriefers' communication and two codes for learners' communication. For video-based coding, coders achieved substantial inter-rater reliabilities with the exception of five codes for debriefers' communication and three codes for learners' communication. Conclusion: DE-CODE is designed as micro-level measurement tool for coding debriefing conversations applicable to any debriefing of SBT in any field (except for the code medical input). It is reliable for direct, on-site observations as well as for video-based coding. DE-CODE is intended to allow for obtaining insights into what works and what does not work during debriefings and contribute to the science of debriefing.

How to debrief teamwork interactions: using circular questions to explore and change team interaction patterns.

We submit that interaction patterns within healthcare teams should be more comprehensively explored during debriefings in simulation-based training because of their importance for clinical performance. We describe how circular questions can be used for that purpose. Circular questions are based on social constructivism. They include a variety of systemic interviewing methods. The goals of circular questions are to explore the mutual dependency of team members' behavior and recurrent behavior patterns, to generate information, to foster perspective taking, to "fluidize" problems, and to put actions into relational contexts. We describe the nature of circular questions, the benefits they offer, and ways of applying them during debriefings.

The surgeon's perspective: promoting and discouraging factors for choosing a career in surgery as perceived by surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify the factors perceived by surgeons that promote surgery as an attractive or unattractive career choice for today's graduates. In addition, it examined whether the perspectives of surgeons in different professional situations converges. The content of work, contextual work conditions, and calling to this job are discussed in the context of choosing surgery as a career. METHODS: Eight hundred sixty-nine surgeons were asked to answer open-ended questions regarding the factors that promote surgery as an attractive or unattractive career choice for today's graduates. Four hundred ninety-two surgeons participated, and 1,525 statements were analyzed using Mayring's content-analyses method. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the differences among hierarchical positions. RESULTS: With respect to the factors that promote surgery as a profession, 40.8% (209/492) of the surgeons stated that surgery is a calling, 29.1% (149/492) of the surgeons provided at least one argument related to the positive task characteristics, and 12.9% (66/492) of the surgeons provided statements related to the positive contextual factors. With respect to the factors that discourage surgery as a profession, 45.7% (234/492) of the surgeons provided at least one argument related to the discouraging work characteristics, and 67.6% (346/492) of the surgeons provided problematic contextual characteristics. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of the calling to surgery as an important factor for choosing surgery as a career. However, the extensive workload, training, and poor work-family balance have been identified as factors that discourage graduates from choosing surgery as a career. The identified positive factors could be used to attract and maintain graduates in surgical disciplines.

Assessing distractors and teamwork during surgery: developing an event-based method for direct observation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a behavioural observation method to simultaneously assess distractors and communication/teamwork during surgical procedures through direct, on-site observations; to establish the reliability of the method for long (>3 h) procedures. METHODS: Observational categories for an event-based coding system were developed based on expert interviews, observations and a literature review. Using Cohen's κ and the intraclass correlation coefficient, interobserver agreement was assessed for 29 procedures. Agreement was calculated for the entire surgery, and for the 1st hour. In addition, interobserver agreement was assessed between two tired observers and between a tired and a non-tired observer after 3 h of surgery. RESULTS: The observational system has five codes for distractors (door openings, noise distractors, technical distractors, side conversations and interruptions), eight codes for communication/teamwork (case-relevant communication, teaching, leadership, problem solving, case-irrelevant communication, laughter, tension and communication with external visitors) and five contextual codes (incision, last stitch, personnel changes in the sterile team, location changes around the table and incidents). Based on 5-min intervals, Cohen's κ was good to excellent for distractors (0.74-0.98) and for communication/teamwork (0.70-1). Based on frequency counts, intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent for distractors (0.86-0.99) and good to excellent for communication/teamwork (0.45-0.99). After 3 h of surgery, Cohen's κ was 0.78-0.93 for distractors, and 0.79-1 for communication/teamwork. DISCUSSION: The observational method developed allows a single observer to simultaneously assess distractors and communication/teamwork. Even for long procedures, high interobserver agreement can be achieved. Data collected with this method allow for investigating separate or combined effects of distractions and communication/teamwork on surgical performance and patient outcomes.

Reasons for the persistence of adverse events in the era of safer surgery--a qualitative approach.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate potential reasons given by board-certified doctors for the persistence of adverse events despite efforts to improve patient safety in Switzerland. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In recent years, substantial efforts have been made to improve patient safety by introducing surgical safety checklists to standardise surgeries and team procedures. Still, a high number of adverse events remain. METHODS: Clinic directors in operative medicine in Switzerland were asked to answer two questions concerning the reasons for persistence of adverse events, and the advantages and disadvantages of introducing and implementing surgical safety checklists. Of 799 clinic directors, the arguments of 237 (29.7%) were content-analysed using Mayring's content analysis method, resulting in 12 different categories. RESULTS: Potential reasons for the persistence of adverse events were mainly seen as being related to the "individual" (126/237, 53.2%), but directors of high-volume clinics identified factors related to the "group and interactions" significantly more often as a reason (60.2% vs 40.2%; p = 0.003). Surgical safety checklists were thought to have positive effects on the "organisational level" (47/237, 19.8%), the "team level" (37/237, 15.6%) and the "patient level" (40/237, 16.9%), with a "lack of willingness to implement checklists" as the main disadvantage (34/237, 14.3%). CONCLUSION: This qualitative study revealed the individual as the main player in the persistence of adverse events. Working conditions should be optimised to minimise interface problems in the case of cross-covering of patients, to assure support for students, residents and interns, and to reduce strain. Checklists are helpful on an "organisational level" (e.g., financial benefits, quality assurance) and to clarify responsibilities.