medigraphic.com
ISSN 2683-2348 (Digital)
Federación Latinoamericana de Simulación Clínica y Seguridad del Paciente

2019, Número 2

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Simulación Clínica 2019; 1 (2)


Educación basada en simulación: debriefing, sus fundamentos, bondades y dificultades

Díaz-Guío DA, Cimadevilla-Calvo B

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 53
Paginas: 95-103
Archivo PDF: 237.21 Kb.


RESUMEN

La educación basada en la simulación clínica es una atractiva forma de enseñar, aprender y de investigar. Durante los momentos de reflexión posteriores a la simulación estas actividades pueden ser potenciadas. El debriefing es un proceso de reflexión consciente e intencionada que permite construir aprendizajes profundos; realizarlo de manera eficiente no es tarea fácil, se presentan dificultades en su esquematización mental, en la verbalización y en la práctica, a eso le denominamos debriefing difícil. Por otro lado, hay situaciones en las cuales el debriefing parece salirse de las manos por las tensiones que pueden propiciarse durante la simulación, como la carga cognitiva, el manejo de las emociones, etcétera. Manejarlas con intervenciones tempranas es la diferencia entre lograr aprendizajes y generar conflictos.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. BEME: features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005; 27 (1): 10-28.

  2. Green M, Tariq R, Green P. Improving patient safety through simulation training in anesthesiology: where are we? Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2016; 2016: 4237523.

  3. Rosen KR. The history of medical simulation. J Crit Care. 2008; 23 (2): 157-166.

  4. Flin R, O’Connor C. Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing; 2008.

  5. Waxman KT. The development of evidence-based clinical simulation scenarios: guidelines for nurse educators. J Nurs Educ. 2010; 49 (1): 29-35.

  6. Cooper JB, Taqueti VR. A brief history of the development of mannequin simulators for clinical education and training. Postgrad Med J. 2008; 84 (997): 563-570.

  7. Kolb DA, Boyatzis RE, Mainemelis C. Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. Perspect Think Learn Cogn Styles. 2000; 1 (216): 227-247.

  8. Rivière E, Jaffrelot M, Jouquan J, Chiniara G. Debriefing for the transfer of learning. Acad Med [Internet]. 2019; 94: 796-803. Available from: http://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00001888-900000000-97718

  9. Grant VJ, Robinson T, Catena H, Eppich W, Cheng A. Difficult debriefing situations: a toolbox for simulation educators. Med Teach. 2018; 40 (7): 703-712.

  10. Dismukes RK, Smith G. Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2000.

  11. Lederman LC. Debriefing: toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simul Gaming. 1992; 23 (2): 145-160.

  12. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006; 1 (1): 49-55.

  13. Berger P, Luckmann T. La construcción social de la realidad. XVII. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu; 2001. p. 240.

  14. Díaz-Guio DA, Ruiz-Ortega FJ. Relationship among mental models, theories of change, and metacognition: structured clinical simulation. Colomb J Anesthesiol. 2019; 47 (14): 113-116.

  15. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008; 15 (11): 1010-1016.

  16. Sperber D, Clément F, Heintz C, Mascaro O, Mercier H, Origgi G, et ál. Epistemic vigilance. Mind Lang. 2010; 25 (4): 359-393.

  17. Craik K. The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1943.

  18. Johnson-Laird P. Mental models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1983. p. 513.

  19. Johnson-Laird P. The history of mental models. In: Manktelow K, editor. Psychology of the reasoning: theoretical and historical perspectives. London: Psychology Press; 2004. pp. 179-212.

  20. Tamayo O. Evolución conceptual desde una perspectiva multidimensional. Aplicación al concepto de respiración. España: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona; 2001.

  21. Vosniadou S. Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learn Instr. 1994; 4 (1): 45-69.

  22. Orrego M, López A, Tamayo O. Modelos de inflamación en estudiantes universitarios. Rev Latinoam Estud Educ. 2012; 8 (1): 75-94.

  23. Knuuttila T, Boon M. How do models give us knowledge? The case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine. Eur J Philos Sci. 2011; 1 (3): 309-334.

  24. Prochaska JO, Di Clemente CC. Transtheoretical therapy: toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy. 1982; 19 (3): 276-288.

  25. Kritsonis A. Comparison of change theories. Int J Manag Business Adm. 2005; 8 (1): 1-7.

  26. Medina MS, Castleberry AN, Persky AM. Strategies for improving learner metacognition in health professional education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017; 81 (4): 78.

  27. Shulman L. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev. 1987; 57 (1): 1-23.

  28. Brousseau G. Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1997.

  29. Oriot D, Alinier G. Pocket book for simulation debriefing in healthcare. Springer International Publishing; 2018.

  30. Opazo-Morales EI, Rojo E, Maestre JM. Modalidades de formación de instructores en simulación clínica: el papel de una estancia o pasantía. Educ Médica. 2017; 18 (1): 22-29.

  31. Ahmed RA, Frey J, Gardner AK, Gordon JA, Yudkowsky R, Tekian A. Characteristics and core curricular elements of medical simulation fellowships in North America. J Grad Med Educ. 2016; 8 (2): 252-255.

  32. Ahmed R, Frey J, Hughes PTA. Simulation fellowship programs in graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2017; 92 (8): 1214.

  33. Cheng A, Palaganas J, Eppich W, Rudolph J, Robinson T, Grant V. Co-debriefing for simulation-based education: a primer for facilitators. Simul Healthc. 2015; 10 (2): 69-75.

  34. Cheng A, Grant V, Huffman J, Burgess G, Szyld D, Robinson T, et ál. Coaching the debriefer. Simul Healthc. 2017; 12 (5): 319-325.

  35. Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux M, Fleegler E, Cheng A, et ál. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare: development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc. 2012; 7 (5): 288-294.

  36. O’Shea CI, Schnieke-Kind C, Pugh D, Picton E. The meta-debrief club: an effective method for debriefing your debrief. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2019; 0: 1-3.

  37. Bandura A. Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1965; 1 (6): 589.

  38. Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception. 1999; 28 (9): 1059-1074.

  39. Fraser K, McLaughlin K. Temporal pattern of emotions and cognitive load during simulation training and debriefing. Med Teach. 2019; 41 (2): 184-189.

  40. Dieckmann P, Gaba D, Rall M. Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc. 2007; 2 (3): 183-193.

  41. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999; 44 (2): 350-383.

  42. Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation the role of the presimulation briefing. Simul Healthc. 2014; 9 (6): 339-349.

  43. LeBlanc VR, McConnell MM, Monteiro SD. Predictable chaos: a review of the effects of emotions on attention, memory and decision making. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2014; 20 (1): 265-282.

  44. Ghazali DA, Ragot S, Breque C, Guechi Y, Boureau-Voultoury A, Petitpas F, et ál. Randomized controlled trial of multidisciplinary team stress and performance in immersive simulation for management of infant in shock: study protocol. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016; 24: 36.

  45. Aghera A, Emery M, Bounds R, Bush C, Stansfield B, Gillett B, et ál. A randomized trial of SMART goal enhanced debriefing after simulation to promote educational actions. West J Emerg Med. 2018; 19: 112-120.

  46. Sawyer T, Eppich W, Brett-Fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More than one way to debrief. Simul Healthc. 2016; 11 (3): 209-217.

  47. Garden AL, Le Fevre DM, Waddington HL, Weller JM. Debriefing after simulation-based non-technical skill training in healthcare: A systematic review of effective practice. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2015; 43 (3): 300-308.

  48. Briñol P, Becerra A, Díaz D, Valle C, Horcajo J, Gallardo I. El efecto de la necesidad de cognición sobre la influencia interpersonal. Psicothema. 2007; 19: 401-405.

  49. Cheng A, LaDonna K, Cristancho S, Ng S. Navigating difficult conversations: the role of self-monitoring and reflection-in-action. Med Educ. 2017; 51 (12): 1220-1231.

  50. Tisserand L. High fidelity simulation: from simulation to debrief, assessing leadership and followership management. Hacettepe Univ J Educ. 2018; 33: 134-155.

  51. Kirkman TR. High fidelity simulation effectiveness in nursing students’ transfer of learning. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2013; 10 (1): 171-176.

  52. Brighton LJ, Selman LE, Gough N, Nadicksbernd JJ, Bristowe K, Millington-Sanders C, et ál. “Difficult conversations”: evaluation of multiprofessional training. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2018; 8 (1): 45-48.

  53. Bruno A, Dell’Aversana G, Guidetti G. Developing organizational competences for conflict management: the use of the prisoner’s dilemma in higher education. Front Psychol. 2018; 9: 376.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com