Instructor-led vs. peer-led debriefing in preoperative care simulation using standardized patients.

Published

Journal Article

BACKGROUND:Debriefing involves the active participation of learners to identify and close gaps in knowledge and skills. Varied debriefing methods are used in simulation, but no empirical studies have examined the effectiveness of peer-led debriefing in simulation using standardized patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two debriefing methods (instructor-led vs. peer-led) on nursing skills, knowledge, self-confidence, and quality of debriefing among undergraduate nursing students in South Korea. METHOD:A nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest design was used. Fifty-seven third-year nursing students were randomly assigned to instructor-led (n = 26) or peer-led (n = 31) debriefing groups after a simulation of preoperative care. Structured questions and areas for discussion guided debriefing in both groups. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data on students' knowledge and self-confidence in providing preoperative care. Faculty evaluated students' nursing skills during pre- and post-simulation practice. Students evaluated the quality of the debriefings. RESULTS:Nursing skills for preoperative care (p < .001) and the quality of debriefing (p < .001) were statistically higher in the instructor-led group compared to the peer-led group. There were no statistically significant differences in knowledge (p = .445) and self-confidence (p = .686). Knowledge and self-confidence from pre-test to posttest were improved in both groups. CONCLUSION:The instructor-led debriefing showed improved nursing skills and higher quality debriefing. However, peer-led debriefing led by a non-trained peer also rendered positive results. Thus, peer-led debriefing may be considered a useful strategy for improving nursing students' self-confidence.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Kim, SS; De Gagne, JC

Published Date

  • December 2018

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 71 /

Start / End Page

  • 34 - 39

PubMed ID

  • 30218850

Pubmed Central ID

  • 30218850

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1532-2793

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 0260-6917

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.001

Language

  • eng