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.

Clinical triggers and vital signs influencing crisis acknowledgment and calls for help by anesthesiologists: A simulation-based observational study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In a perioperative emergency, anesthesiologists must acknowledge the unfolding crisis promptly, call for timely assistance, and avert patient harm. We aimed to identify vital signs and qualitative factors prompting crisis acknowledgment and to compare responses between observers and participants in simulation. DESIGN: Prospective, simulation-based, observational study. SETTING: An anesthesia crisis resource management course at a freestanding simulation center. SUBJECTS: Sixty attending anesthesiologists from a variety of practice settings. INTERVENTIONS: In each case, a primary anesthesiologist in charge (PAIC) managed a simulated patient undergoing a uniformly scripted sequence of perioperative anaphylaxis and called for help from another anesthesiologist when a crisis began. Anesthesiologist observers (AOs) viewed the case separately and recorded times of crisis onset. MEASUREMENTS: Simulation footage was reviewed by investigators for patient vital signs and participant behaviors at times of crisis acknowledgment, with the call for help as an explicit proxy for PAIC crisis acknowledgment. These factors were categorized, and group-level data were compared. RESULTS: Nineteen PAICs and 41 AOs were included. Clinicians acknowledged crises around a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and oxygen saturation of 94% as anaphylactic shock progressed. PAICs acknowledged crises at a higher respiratory rate than AOs (20 vs. 18 breaths/min, p = 0.038). Other vitals and timing of crisis acknowledgment did not differ between PAICs and AOs. Nearly half of all participants (45%) identified crises at MAP <65 mmHg. Timing of crisis acknowledgment varied widely (range: 421 s). CONCLUSIONS: Despite overall heterogeneity in clinical performance, anesthesiologists acknowledged crises per standard definitions of hypotension. Thresholds for crisis acknowledgment did not significantly differ between PAICs and AOs, suggesting minimal effect from active care responsibility. Many indicated crises at MAP <65 mmHg or after significant deterioration, risking failure-to-rescue events. We suggest that crisis management instruction should address triggers for requesting help.

Leading change in practice: how "longitudinal prebriefing" nurtures and sustains in situ simulation programs.

In situ simulation (ISS) programs deliver patient safety benefits to healthcare systems, however, face many challenges in both implementation and sustainability. Prebriefing is conducted immediately prior to a simulation activity to enhance engagement with the learning activity, but is not sufficient to embed and sustain an ISS program. Longer-term and broader change leadership is required to engage colleagues, secure time and resources, and sustain an in situ simulation program. No framework currently exists to describe this process for ISS programs. This manuscript presents a framework derived from the analysis of three successful ISS program implementations across different hospital systems. We describe eight change leadership steps adapted from Kotter's change management theory, used to sustainably implement the ISS programs analyzed. These steps include the following: (1) identifying goals of key stakeholders, (2) engaging a multi-professional team, (3) creating a shared vision, (4) communicating the vision effectively, (5) energizing participants and enabling program participation, (6) identifying and celebrating early success, (7) closing the loop on early program successes, and (8) embedding simulation in organizational culture and operations. We describe this process as a "longitudinal prebrief," a framework which provides a step-by-step guide to engage colleagues and sustain successful implementation of ISS.

Transforming Team Culture: A Case Study From Critical Care.

Interprofessional team conflict amplifies division and impedes patient care. Normal differences of opinion escalate to frank conflicts when members respond with indignation or resentment. These behaviors engender a workplace culture that degrades collaborative clinical management and patient safety. We describe the impacts of dysfunctional team culture along with interventions that can lead to more productive teams. In our case study, an interprofessional group of critical care clinicians recognized that their interactions impaired collaborative care and requested support. Two experts, a nurse and a physician, facilitated two 2-h workshops with 18 critical care physicians, nurses, and fellows to begin transforming their dysfunctional unit culture. After establishing psychological safety, facilitators introduced the learning pathways grid to explore (1) how faulty assumptions lead to dysfunctional interactions and suboptimal results and (2) how new assumptions informed by new insights enable teams to redesign their interactions. Through reflection and analysis, clinicians concluded that understanding other clinicians' goals and perspectives benefits patients and families, helps clinicians feel valued, and fosters mutual trust. This exercise supports interprofessional teams to transform dysfunctional interactions by helping team members to develop a mindset of humility and inquiry and to remind themselves about the good intentions in others. To address conflict, we offer a conversational approach grounded in curiosity, respect, and transparency. Ultimately, the most important communication strategy for effective critical care is caring about the perspectives and experiences of other members of the interprofessional team.

Strategy to Develop a Common Simulation Training Program: Illustration with Anesthesia and Intensive Care Residency in France.

Phenomenon: The urgency of having fair and trustworthy competency-based assessment in medical training is growing. Simulation is increasingly recognized as a potent method for building and assessing applied competencies. The growing use of simulation and its application in summative assessment calls for comprehensive and rigorously designed programs. Defining the current baseline of what is available and feasible is a crucial first step. This paper uses anesthesia and intensive care (AIC) in France as a case study in how to document this baseline. Approach: An IRB-approved, online anonymous closed survey was submitted to AIC residency program directors and AIC simulation program directors in France from January to February 2021. The researcher-developed survey consisted of 65 questions across five sections: centers' characteristics, curricular characteristics, courses' characteristics, instructors' characteristics, and simulation perceptions and perspectives. Findings: The participation rate was 31/31 (100%) with 29 centers affiliated with a university hospital. All centers had AIC simulation activities. Resident training was structured in 94% of centers. Simulation uses were training (100%), research and development (61%), procedural or organizational testing (42%), and summative assessment (13%). Interprofessional full-scale simulation training existed in 90% of centers. Procedural training on simulators prior to clinical patients' care was performed "always" in 16%, "most often" in 45%, "sometimes" in 29% and "rarely" or "not" in 10% of centers. Simulated patients were used in 61% of centers. Main themes were identified for procedural skills, full-scale and simulated patient simulation training. Simulation activity was perceived as increasing in 68% of centers. Centers expressed a desire to participate in developing and using a national common AIC simulation program. Insights: Based on our findings in AIC, we demonstrated a baseline description of nationwide simulation activities. We now have a clearer perspective on a decentralized approach in which individual institutions or regional consortia conduct simulation for a discipline in a relatively homogeneous way, suggesting the feasibility for national guidelines. This approach provides useful clues for AIC and other disciplines to develop a comprehensive and meaningful program matching existing expectations and closing the identified gaps.

Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start. METHODS: First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee. RESULTS: Seven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted. CONCLUSION: Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.

Teaching, coaching, or debriefing With Good Judgment: a roadmap for implementing "With Good Judgment" across the SimZones.

Simulation-based learning occurs in multiple contexts, and one teaching style cannot adequately cover the needs at each learning level. For example, reflective debriefing, often used following a complex simulation case, is not what is needed when learning new skills. When to use which facilitation style is a question that educators often overlook or struggle to determine. SimZones is a framework used to clarify the multiple contexts in simulation. This framework, combined with elements of Debriefing With Good Judgment, can help educators match the appropriate facilitation style with learner needs and learning context. We have distilled the core elements of the "with good judgment" approach to debriefing and applied them to the SimZones framework to guide educators with (1) what type of learning can be expected with each learning context, (2) what behaviors and activities can be expected of the learners in each learning context, (3) what instructional strategies are most effectively used at each stage, and (4) what are the implications for the teacher-learner relationship.

Learning practices of experienced healthcare teams and dyads in acute care settings: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To map the evidence on learning practices currently used by experienced healthcare teams and dyads. The hypothesis is that through reviewing the literature we will identify the number and array of current learning practices. Through the lens of collaboration, the authors' goal is to map current practice to guide future research, policy and practice. SETTING: The review included studies from North America, Europe, Australasia and Asia. All studies were conducted in acute care settings such as operating rooms, emergency rooms, intensive care units and simulation centres. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were experienced healthcare professionals who work in acute care settings of any age or any sex. The group was interprofessional including two or more disciplines and/or professions. Characteristics of the participants who were excluded were students, novices, healthcare professionals who work in non-acute care settings and single profession studies. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Aligned to the protocol quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Thematic analysis was used to evaluate and categorise the study findings. Secondary outcome measures were the different types of learning practices used together to produce excellence. RESULTS: Most empirical studies were qualitative studies (46%), 31% were mixed methods and 23% were quantitative studies. There were also 24 reviews and 10 commentaries. The most frequent learning practices were structured observation and case scenarios (21%) followed by audio/video analysis and surveys (17%). Next was interviews and didactic presentations (12%) followed by prebriefing/debriefing and checklists (11%). Other learning practices accounted for less than 10%. Overall, 84 of the 86 publications, examined learning practices of teams larger than two participants. CONCLUSIONS: While the quality of studies was high, and there was a broad range of empirical studies, reviews and commentaries, there was no consensus on best practice in determining which learning practices to use and measurement of the effect of these practices.

Innovative Tele-Instruction Approach Impacts Basic Life Support Performance: A Non-inferiority Trial.

Background: Sustaining Basic Life Support (BLS) training during the COVID-19 pandemic bears substantial challenges. The limited availability of highly qualified instructors and tight economic conditions complicates the delivery of these life-saving trainings. Consequently, innovative and resource-efficient approaches are needed to minimize or eliminate contagion while maintaining high training standards and managing learner anxiety related to infection risk. Methods: In a non-inferiority trial 346 first-year medical, dentistry, and physiotherapy students underwent BLS training at AIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Our objectives were (1) to examine whether peer feedback BLS training supported by tele-instructors matches the learning performance of standard instructor-guided BLS training for laypersons; and (2) to minimize infection risk during BLS training. Therefore, in a parallel group design, we compared arm (1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) BLS training (Historical control group of 2019) with arm (2) a Tele-Instructor Supported Peer-Feedback (TPF) BLS training (Intervention group of 2020). Both study arms were based on Peyton's 4-step approach. Before and after each training session, objective data for BLS performance (compression depth and rate) were recorded using a resuscitation manikin. We also assessed overall BLS performance via standardized instructor evaluation and student self-reports of confidence via questionnaire. Non-inferiority margins for the outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with SIF. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority. Results: The results confirmed non-inferiority of TPF to SIF for all tested outcome parameters. A follow-up after 2 weeks found no confirmed COVID-19 infections among the participants. Conclusion: Tele-instructor supported peer feedback is a powerful alternative to in-person instructor feedback on BLS skills during a pandemic, where infection risk needs to be minimized while maximizing the quality of BLS skill learning. Trial registration: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025199, Trial ID: DRKS00025199.

Setting the stage for speaking up: psychological safety and directing care in acute care collaboration.

Managing a safe and efficient anaesthetic induction within a team involves the challenge of when, if, and how to surface, discuss, and implement the best plan on how to proceed. The Lemke and colleagues study in this issue of the British Journal of Anaesthesia is a unique view into real-world conversations that naturally occur in anaesthesia teams in moments of high task and cognitive load, such as induction of anaesthesia. The study spotlights important small moments of physician, nurse, and trainee team coordination. It illuminates key patterns of conversation in naturally occurring anaesthesia teams, and raises important questions about what the speaking up standard should be and the psychological safety-shaping role consultants play in setting the norms for speaking up.

First steps towards international competency goals for residency training: a qualitative comparison of 3 regional standards in anesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: Competency-based medical education (CBME) has revolutionized approaches to training by making expectations more concrete, visible, and relevant for trainees. Designing, applying, and updating CBME requirements challenges residency programs, which must address many aspects of training simultaneously. This challenge also exists for educational regulatory bodies in creating and adjusting national competencies to standardize training expectations. We propose that an international approach for mapping residency training requirements may provide a baseline for assessing commonalities and differences. This approach allows us to take our first steps towards creating international competency goals to enhance sharing of best practices in education and clinical work. METHODS: We chose anesthesiology residency training as our example discipline. Using two rounds of content analysis, we qualitatively compared published anesthesiology residency competencies for the European Union (The European Training Requirement), United States (ACGME Milestones), and Canada (CanMEDS Competence By Design), focusing on similarities and differences in representation (round one) and emphasis (round two) to generate hypotheses on practical solutions regarding international educational standards. RESULTS: We mapped the similarities and discrepancies between the three repositories. Round one revealed that 93% of competencies were common between the three repositories. Major differences between European Training Requirement, US Milestones, and Competence by Design competencies involved critical emergency medicine. Round two showed that over 30% of competencies were emphasized equally, with notable exceptions that European Training Requirement emphasized Anaesthesia Non-Technical Skills, Competence by Design highlighted more granular competencies within specific anesthesiology situations, and US Milestones emphasized professionalism and behavioral practices. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative comparison has identified commonalities and differences in anesthesiology training which may facilitate sharing broader perspectives on diverse high-quality educational, clinical, and research practices to enhance innovative approaches. Determining these overlaps in residency training can prompt international educational societies responsible for creating competencies to collaborate to design future training programs. This approach may be considered as a feasible method to build an international core of residency competency requirements for other disciplines.

Optimising expert dyad performance in acute care settings: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: When there is miscommunication and poor coordination between experienced clinician dyads, teamwork suffers. Research on expert learning practices for the smallest team, and arguably the most important team, the healthcare dyad, is limited. The objective of this study is to map the extent and range of evidence available on learning practices which experienced dyads use, to achieve excellent performance, and to identify the gaps in effective practice. This will guide future research, policy and practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Extension Fillable Checklist, searching for literature that meets the inclusion criteria. The searches will be conducted using Maastricht University's Libsearch, which includes MEDLINE, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO and a second search on Web of Science online databases. We will search grey literature and references of selected sources. Search limits include sources from 2016 to 2021, using English language only. A data extraction tool was developed, and charting will use a thematic analysis approach. IMPLICATIONS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will be the first to examine the learning practices that experienced dyads use, which ensures excellent performance in acute care settings. The findings will be used to develop best-practices and shared with New York City hospital system. Dissemination will occur through peer-reviewed publications and at healthcare conferences.

Peer video feedback builds basic life support skills: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Training Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons. METHODS: In a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority. RESULTS: Results confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive. DISCUSSION: Peer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended.

Rapid cycle system improvement for COVID-19 readiness: integrating deliberate practice, psychological safety and vicarious learning.

Introduction: In the face of a rapidly advancing pandemic with uncertain pathophysiology, pop-up healthcare units, ad hoc teams and unpredictable personal protective equipment supply, it is difficult for healthcare institutions and front-line teams to invent and test robust and safe clinical care pathways for patients and clinicians. Conventional simulation-based education was not designed for the time-pressured and emergent needs of readiness in a pandemic. We used 'rapid cycle system improvement' to create a psychologically safe learning oasis in the midst of a pandemic. This oasis provided a context to build staff technical and teamwork capacity and improve clinical workflows simultaneously. Methods: At the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care in Prince of Wales Hospital, a tertiary institution, in situ simulations were carried out in the operating theatres and intensive care unit (ICU). The translational simulation design leveraged principles of psychological safety, rapid cycle deliberate practice, direct and vicarious learning to ready over 200 staff with 51 sessions and achieve iterative system improvement all within 7 days. Staff evaluations and system improvements were documented postsimulation. Results/Findings: Staff in both operating theatres and ICU were significantly more comfortable and confident in managing patients with COVID-19 postsimulation. Teamwork, communication and collective ability to manage infectious cases were enhanced. Key system issues were also identified and improved. Discussion: To develop readiness in the rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemic, we demonstrated that 'rapid cycle system improvement' can efficiently help achieve three intertwined goals: (1) ready staff for new clinical processes, (2) build team competence and confidence and (3) improve workflows and procedures.

Managing psychological safety in debriefings: a dynamic balancing act.

Debriefings should promote reflection and help learners make sense of events. Threats to psychological safety can undermine reflective learning conversations and may inhibit transfer of key lessons from simulated cases to the general patient care context. Therefore, effective debriefings require high degrees of psychological safety-the perception that it is safe to take interpersonal risks and that one will not be embarrassed, rejected or otherwise punished for speaking their mind, not knowing or asking questions. The role of introductions, learning contracts and prebriefing in establishing psychological safety is well described in the literature. How to maintain psychological safety, while also being able to identify and restore psychological safety during debriefings, is less well understood. This review has several aims. First, we provide a detailed definition of psychological safety and justify its importance for debriefings. Second, we recommend specific strategies debriefers can use throughout the debriefing to build and maintain psychological safety. We base these recommendations on a literature review and on our own experiences as simulation educators. Third, we examine how debriefers might actively address perceived breaches to restore psychological safety. Re-establishing psychological safety after temporary threats or breaches can seem particularly daunting. To demystify this process, we invoke the metaphor of a 'safe container' for learning; a space where learners can feel secure enough to work at the edge of expertise without threat of humiliation. We conclude with a discussion of limitations and implications, particularly with respect to faculty development.

What's the headline on your mind right now? How reflection guides simulation-based faculty development in a master class.

Introduction: The demand for highly skilled simulation-based healthcare educators (SBEs) is growing. SBEs charged with developing other SBEs need to be able to model and conduct high-quality feedback conversations and 'debrief the debriefing'. Direct, non-threatening feedback is one of the strongest predictors of improved performance in health professions education. However, it is a difficult skill to develop. Developing SBEs who can coach and support other SBEs is an important part of the faculty development pipeline. Yet we know little about how they get better at skilled feedback and the ability to reflect on it. There is scant evidence about their thoughts, feelings and dilemmas about this advanced learning process. To address this gap, we examined advanced SBE's subjective experience as they grappled with challenges in a 4-day advanced SBE course. Their reflections will help target faculty development efforts. Methods: Using a repeated, identical free-writing task, we asked "What is the headline for what is on your mind right now?" Results: A five-theme mosaic of self-guiding reflections emerged: (1) metacognitions about one's learning process, (2) evaluations of sessions or tools, (3) notes to self, (4) anticipations of applying the new skills in the future, and (5) tolerating the tension between pleasant and unpleasant emotions. Conclusions: The results extend simulation-based education science by advocating the motivational role of noting inconsistencies between one's intention and impact and the central role of self-regulation, emotion, and experiencing feedback and debriefing from multiple perspectives for improving advanced skills of SBEs. Recommendations for faculty development are discussed.

Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development.

STATEMENT: Better debriefing practices may enhance the impact of simulation-based education. Emerging literature suggests that learner-centered debriefing may be effective in helping instructors identify and address learner needs while building learner's engagement and sense of responsibility for learning. This contrasts with instructor-centered approaches to debriefing, where instructors maintain unilateral control over both the process and content of the debriefing, thus limiting input and direction from learners. Although different approaches to debriefing for simulation-based education exist, the simulation literature is largely mute on the topic of learner-centered debriefing. In this article we will (1) compare and contrast learner- versus instructor-centered approaches to teaching; (2) provide a rationale for applying more learner-centered approaches to debriefing; (3) introduce a conceptual framework that highlights the key dimensions of learner- versus instructor-centered debriefing; (4) describe key variables to consider when managing the balance between learner- and instructor-centered debriefing; and (5) describe practical learner-centered strategies for various phases of debriefing.

Improving Anesthesiologists' Ability to Speak Up in the Operating Room: A Randomized Controlled Experiment of a Simulation-Based Intervention and a Qualitative Analysis of Hurdles and Enablers.

PURPOSE: The authors addressed three questions: (1) Would a realistic simulation-based educational intervention improve speaking-up behaviors of practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists? (2) What would those speaking-up behaviors be when the issue emanated from a surgeon, a circulating nurse, or an anesthesiologist colleague? (3) What were the hurdles and enablers to speaking up in those situations? METHOD: The authors conducted a simulation-based randomized controlled experiment from March 2008-February 2011 at the Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. During a mandatory crisis management course for practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists from five Boston institutions, a 50-minute workshop on speaking up was conducted for intervention (n = 35) and control (n = 36) groups before or after, respectively, an experimental scenario with three events. The authors analyzed videos of the experimental scenarios and debriefing sessions. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the intervention and control group subjects with respect to speaking-up actions were observed in any of the three events. The five most frequently mentioned hurdles to speaking up were uncertainty about the issue, stereotypes of others on the team, familiarity with the individual, respect for experience, and the repercussion expected. The five most frequently mentioned enablers were realizing the speaking-up problem, having a speaking-up rubric, certainty about the consequences of speaking up, familiarity with the individual, and having a second opinion or getting help. CONCLUSIONS: An educational intervention alone was ineffective in improving the speaking-up behaviors of practicing nontrainee anesthesiologists. Other measures to change speaking-up behaviors could be implemented and might improve patient safety.

A behaviourally anchored rating scale for evaluating the use of the WHO surgical safety checklist: development and initial evaluation of the WHOBARS.

BACKGROUND: Realising the full potential of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) to reduce perioperative harm requires the constructive engagement of all operating room (OR) team members during its administration. To facilitate research on SSC implementation, a valid and reliable instrument is needed for measuring OR team behaviours during its administration. We developed a behaviourally anchored rating scale (BARS) for this purpose. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi process, involving 16 subject matter experts, to compile a BARS with behavioural domains applicable to all three phases of the SSC. We evaluated the instrument in 80 adult OR cases and 30 simulated cases using two medical student raters and seven expert raters, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Internal consistency and instrument discrimination were explored. Sample size estimates for potential study designs using the instrument were calculated. RESULTS: The Delphi process resulted in a BARS instrument (the WHOBARS) with five behavioural domains. Intraclass correlation coefficients calculated from the OR cases exceeded 0.80 for 80% of the instrument's domains across the SSC phases. The WHOBARS showed high internal consistency across the three phases of the SSC and ability to discriminate among surgical cases in both clinical and simulated settings. Fewer than 20 cases per group would be required to show a difference of 1 point between groups in studies of the SSC, where α=0.05 and ß=0.8. CONCLUSION: We have developed a generic instrument for comprehensively rating the administration of the SSC and informing initiatives to realise its full potential. We have provided data supporting its capacity for discrimination, internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Further psychometric evaluation is warranted.