Resident versus faculty member simulation debriefing

Abstract

SUMMARY Background Near- peer teaching is effective in graduate medical education, but it has not been compared with faculty member teaching in resident simulation. In this study, we sought to compare debriefing sessions of internal medicine (IM) intern simulation sessions led by academic faculty doctors with those led by senior IM residents in order to measure the effectiveness of near-peer teaching in this setting. Method Internal medicine interns participated in four simulation cases, two of which were debriefed by faculty members and two of which were debriefed by residents. Pre- simulation knowledge assessment was completed prior to the case. Following each debriefing, interns completed a Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) survey. Post- simulation knowledge assessments were completed 6 months after simulation. Debriefings were recorded and transcribed. Each statement made during debriefing was classified as either correct or erroneous by blinded reviewers. Results Fifty interns participated in simulation, and the response rate on the DASH survey was 88%. There was no difference between DASH scores (p = 0.13), post- simulation knowledge assessments or error rates during debriefing (p = 0.31) for faculty member and resident instructors. Conclusion Our study suggests that residents and faculty members provide a similar quality of simulation instruction based on qualitative and quantitative evaluation.

Near-Peer Tutor: A Solution For Quality Medical Education in Faculty Constraint Setting

“…Medical sciences students were the study population in all included studies except three where one study included dental students [11], one nursing [12], and one sports medicine (physiotherapy) [13]. All included studies were randomized experimental designs except one study [14]. In the study by Cameroon et al, though mentioned clusterrandomized trial, the unit of study was an individual student [11].…”

“…As per inclusion criteria, the near-peer tutor was defined as one or more years senior to the trainee on the same level of health education training comprising junior residents (senior near-peer) and students (junior near-peer). In seven studies, the near-peer were volunteers [11,14,[16][17][18]. Only in research done by Heckmann et al, peers were trained [19].…”

“…The teaching-learning method was the same in both study groups except in Beck et al, where the intervention group received small-group teaching and the comparator group received large group teaching [15]. Teaching was conducted via a simulation laboratory in Adam et al [14] and Graziano [20] and a laboratory setting in Weidner and Popp [13] and Weyrich et al [21]. In a study done by Adam et al and Heckmann et al, students' skill and satisfaction were assessed, while in other studies, either knowledge and skill were assessed with or without satisfaction [14,19].…”

“…Teaching was conducted via a simulation laboratory in Adam et al [14] and Graziano [20] and a laboratory setting in Weidner and Popp [13] and Weyrich et al [21]. In a study done by Adam et al and Heckmann et al, students' skill and satisfaction were assessed, while in other studies, either knowledge and skill were assessed with or without satisfaction [14,19].…”

Leveraging Peer Teaching for Global Health Elective Preparation: Implementation of a Resident-Led Global Health Simulation Curriculum

“…16 This supports prior research regarding the effectiveness of peer teaching. [17][18][19] We also know that the process of peer teaching offers special advantages both to the teacher and learner. Several studies demonstrate that this model provides an opportunity for residents to develop teaching and feedback skills.…”