Operation Debrief

Ahmed, Maria; Arora, Sonal; Russ, Stephanie; Darzi, Ara; Vincent, Charles; Sevdalis, Nick

doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31828c88fc

Cited by 104 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each student reviewed his or her video using a rubric ( Supplement 1 ) incorporating the SHARP debriefing tool [ 13 ]. The SHARP tool encourages students to identify aspects that they performed well, areas requiring improvement, whether the learning objectives for the task were met, and to outline a short plan for addressing the areas requiring improvement [ 13 ]. Students then uploaded the video and written assignment to the university learning management system for grading.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning through multiple lenses: analysis of self, peer, nearpeer, and faculty assessments of a clinical history-taking task in Australia

Fitzgerald¹,

Vaughan

2018

J Educ Eval Health Prof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposePeer assessment provides a framework for developing expected skills and receiving feedback appropriate to the learner’s level. Near-peer (NP) assessment may elevate expectations and motivate learning. Feedback from peers and NPs may be a sustainable way to enhance student assessment feedback. This study analysed relationships among self, peer, NP, and faculty marking of an assessment and students’ attitudes towards marking by those various groups.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used. Year 2 osteopathy students (n= 86) were invited to perform self and peer assessments of a clinical history-taking and communication skills assessment. NPs and faculty also marked the assessment. Year 2 students also completed a questionnaire on their attitudes to peer/NP marking. Descriptive statistics and the Spearman rho coefficient were used to evaluate relationships across marker groups.ResultsYear 2 students (n= 9), NPs (n= 3), and faculty (n= 5) were recruited. Correlations between self and peer (r= 0.38) and self and faculty (r= 0.43) marks were moderate. A weak correlation was observed between self and NP marks (r= 0.25). Perceptions of peer and NP marking varied, with over half of the cohort suggesting that peer or NP assessments should not contribute to their grade.ConclusionFraming peer and NP assessment as another feedback source may offer a sustainable method for enhancing feedback without overloading faculty resources. Multiple sources of feedback may assist in developing assessment literacy and calibrating students’ self-assessment capability. The small number of students recruited suggests some acceptability of peer and NP assessment; however, further work is required to increase its acceptability.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning through multiple lenses: analysis of self, peer, nearpeer, and faculty assessments of a clinical history-taking task in Australia

Fitzgerald¹,

Vaughan

2018

J Educ Eval Health Prof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should also be borne in mind that in some circumstances or when delivered inappropriately, feedback may not be effective; for instance, although a number of studies in medical students have found feedback to improve acquisition of basic surgical skills, 8–10 some have failed to find this, 22 and the effect of feedback may plateau. 23 24 Frameworks have been suggested in order to ensure appropriate dissemination of feedback, 25 which is particularly important given the fact that trainees often feel they are provided with inadequate feedback despite senior surgeons feeling their feedback provision is adequate. 26 27 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of feedback of intraoperative technical performance in surgery: a systematic review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesIncreasing patient demands, costs and emphasis on safety, coupled with reductions in the length of time surgical trainees spend in the operating theatre, necessitate means to improve the efficiency of surgical training. In this respect, feedback based on intraoperative surgical performance may be beneficial. Our aim was to systematically review the impact of intraoperative feedback based on surgical performance.SettingMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 32 data-points per study were extracted.ParticipantsThe search strategy yielded 1531 citations. Three studies were eligible, which comprised a total of 280 procedures by 62 surgeons.ResultsOverall, feedback based on intraoperative surgical performance was found to be a powerful method for improving performance. In cholecystectomy, feedback led to a reduction in procedure time (p=0.022) and an improvement in economy of movement (p<0.001). In simulated laparoscopic colectomy, feedback led to improvements in instrument path length (p=0.001) and instrument smoothness (p=0.045). Feedback also reduced error scores in cholecystectomy (p=0.003), simulated laparoscopic colectomy (p<0.001) and simulated renal artery angioplasty (p=0.004). In addition, feedback improved balloon placement accuracy (p=0.041), and resulted in a smoother learning curve and earlier plateau in performance in simulated renal artery angioplasty.ConclusionsIntraoperative feedback appears to be associated with an improvement in performance, however, there is a paucity of research in this area. Further work is needed in order to establish the long-term benefits of feedback and the optimum means and circumstances of feedback delivery.

show abstract

“…Although Waznonis (2014) has identified 22 methods for debriefing, we have selected five commonly cited methods and two approaches to assess debriefings (Dieckmann, Reddersen, Zieger, & Rall, 2008;Rudolph, Simon, Raemer, & Eppich, 2008;Arora, Ahmed, Paige, Nestel, & Sevdalis, 2012;Brett-Fleegler, Rudolph, Eppich, Monuteaux, & Simon, 2012;Dreifuerst, 2012;Ahmed, Arora, Russ, Darzi, & Sevdalis, 2013;Phrampus & O'Donnell, 2013). For each method, we have aligned Gibbs's reflective cycle with the six stages (Table 1).…”

Section: Gibbs's Reflective Cycle and Its Relation To Debriefing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some methods combine several of Gibbs's stages under one heading, whereas others extend specific stages. SHARP (Ahmed et al, 2013) does not include specific reference to either description or feelings. ''Meaningful debriefing'' (Dreifuerst, 2012) uses Gibbs's stages out of sequence with emphasis on analysis, whereas the Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (Arora et al, 2012) precisely mirrors the stages in Gibbs's reflective cycle.…”

Section: Gibbs's Reflective Cycle and Its Relation To Debriefing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflective Practice and Its Role in Simulation

Husebø

O’Regan

Nestel

2015

Clinical Simulation in Nursing

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operation Debrief

Abstract: SHARP is an effective and efficient means of improving performance feedback in the operating room. Its routine use should be promoted to optimize workplace-based learning and foster a positive culture of debriefing and performance improvement within surgery.

Cited by 104 publications

References 22 publications

Learning through multiple lenses: analysis of self, peer, nearpeer, and faculty assessments of a clinical history-taking task in Australia

Learning through multiple lenses: analysis of self, peer, nearpeer, and faculty assessments of a clinical history-taking task in Australia

The impact of feedback of intraoperative technical performance in surgery: a systematic review

Reflective Practice and Its Role in Simulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About