Comparison of simulation debriefs with traditional needs assessment methods: a qualitative exploratory study in a critical care community setting

Sarti, Aimee J., Ajjawi, Rola, Sutherland, Stephanie, Landriault, Angele, Kim, John and Cardinal, Pierre 2018, Comparison of simulation debriefs with traditional needs assessment methods: a qualitative exploratory study in a critical care community setting, BMJ Open, vol. 8, no. 10, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020570.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Comparison of simulation debriefs with traditional needs assessment methods: a qualitative exploratory study in a critical care community setting
Author(s) Sarti, Aimee J.
Ajjawi, RolaORCID iD for Ajjawi, Rola orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-3870
Sutherland, Stephanie
Landriault, Angele
Kim, John
Cardinal, Pierre
Journal name BMJ Open
Volume number 8
Issue number 10
Article ID e020570
Total pages 10
Publisher BMJ Publishing Group
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2018-10-08
ISSN 2044-6055
Keyword(s) qualitative research
quality in health care
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Medicine, General & Internal
General & Internal Medicine
CRISIS-RESOURCE-MANAGEMENT
HIGH-FIDELITY SIMULATION
HEALTH-CARE
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
PERFORMANCE
EDUCATION
MEDICINE
TECHNOLOGY
TEAM
Summary OBJECTIVE: To better understand the potential of a needs assessment approach using qualitative data from manikin-based and virtual patient simulation debriefing sessions compared with traditional data collection methods (ie, focus groups and interviews). DESIGN: Original data from simulation debrief sessions was compared and contrasted with data from an earlier assessment of critical care needs in a community setting (using focus groups and interviews), thus undertaking secondary analysis of data. Time and cost data were also examined. Debrief sessions were coded using deductive and inductive techniques. Matrices were used to explore the commonalities, differences and emergent findings across the methods. SETTING: Critical care unit in a community hospital setting. RESULTS: Interviews and focus groups yielded 684 and 647 min of audio-recordings, respectively. The manikin-based debrief recordings averaged 22 min (total=130 min) and virtual patient debrief recordings averaged 31 min (total=186 min). The approximate cost for the interviews and focus groups was $13 560, for manikin-based simulation debriefs was $4030 and for the virtual patient debriefs was $3475. Fifteen of 20 total themes were common across the simulation debriefs and interview/focus group data. Simulation-specific themes were identified, including fidelity (environment, equipment and psychological) and the multiple roles of the simulation instructor (educative, promoting reflection and assessing needs). CONCLUSIONS: Given current fiscal realities, the dual benefit of being educative and identifying needs is appealing. While simulation is an innovative method to conduct needs assessments, it is important to recognise that there are trade-offs with the selection of methods.
Language eng
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020570
Field of Research 130209 Medicine, Nursing and Health Curriculum and Pedagogy
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2018, The Authors
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30114285

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 25 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 07:54:43 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.