Debriefing in facilitator-led and student-led healthcare simulation – a comparative analysis
Master thesis
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3100088Utgivelsesdato
2022Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
- Studentoppgaver (HV) [1305]
Sammendrag
Background. Healthcare simulation is method of training healthcare professionals to gainknowledge and skill in an experiential way through mock-patient encounters. Costsassociated with simulations are amongst others related to staff due to high teacher-tostudentratio. This study aims to investigate whether simulation-experienced paramedicstudents can plan, deliver, and debrief simulations. This will be compared to ordinarysimulations as part of a university bachelor’s degree program in Paramedic Sciencedelivered by regular facilitators. The first research question is if level of reflection indebriefing is equivalent between facilitator-led and student-led simulation. The secondresearch question is whether there is equivalent level of participation between the twomodes of simulation.
Theoretical foundation. The study builds on research in healthcare simulation, and peerassistedlearning. It also draws on ideas of reflection, and its implication for professionalcompetence.
Methods. This is an observational non-inferiority study. Debriefings from facilitator-led(n=10) and student-led (n=12) simulation where filmed and transcribed. Each turn in adebriefing conversation was considered a unit of analysis and was counted and rated for itsreflective level. Rating was done using an adapted version of Fleck´s framework ofreflection levels, giving ratings from R0 to R4 as the highest level. Statistical analysis wasdone comparing reflective levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefing usingChi-Square Test of Independence. The study did not affect student’s workload, learningopportunities, or assessments. Participation was based on informed consent.Results. Reflective levels seen in facilitator-led vs student-led debriefings where at R0-level 32.7% vs 33.8%, R1-level 44.0% vs 44.3%, R2-level 14.7% vs 17.1%, R3-level 0.1%vs 1.3%, R4-level and 0.1% vs 0.1% respectively. Differences in reflective levels betweenfacilitator-led and student-led simulations were not statistically significant. Studentsparticipating in the simulation activity contributed to 62.7% of the conversation infacilitator-led debriefings compared to 60.6% in student-led debriefings, and the differencewas not significant.
Conclusion. This study shows that it is feasible for students to plan, deliver and debrieftheir own simulations, with comparable participation and reflection, when comparing toordinary simulation. Student-led could be a cost-effective supplement to ordinarysimulation.