跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT03307421
NCT03307421Unknown不适用

Comparison Between a Team Debriefing With an Instructor and a Team Debriefing Without an Instructor, on Improving Non-technical Skills (TEAM Score) After Simulating a Vital Emergency in a Multidisciplinary Team as Part of the Initial Training

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon2 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 160 人开始时间: 2017年10月12日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
入组人数
160
试验地点
2
主要终点
TEAM SCORE

研究概览

简要总结

Comparison between a team debriefing with an instructor and a team debriefing without an instructor, on improving non-technical skills (TEAM score) after simulating a vital emergency in a multidisciplinary team as part of the initial training

详细描述

In spite of the enthusiasm that the simulation raises, its use remains rather complicated in the training of the interns in anesthesiologists-resuscitators (DESAR) and nursing anesthesiologists (EIADE) . Its development has two main limitations: financial and human. Indeed, it mobilizes the medical and paramedical staff already in place, which is a difficulty in a context of demographic constraints.

A simulation session typically takes place in 3 stages: briefing, simulation and debriefing.

The debriefing, the pedagogical pillar of the sessions, demonstrated its influence on the improvement of participants' performances. Different works have tried to define the ideal debriefing method , but its modalities are yet to be defined. To reduce this time Boet and al proposed the assisted video debriefing without instructor. Its principle is that the team of learners will debrief themselves, watching the video recording of their performance. Learners have as a teaching aid a grid that recalls the principles of team work and the technical recommendations of the pathology addressed. This debriefing would therefore reduce the training time and facilitate access to the simulation. However, its pedagogical effectiveness has not been compared to the "gold standard" instructor-team debriefing on initial training and long-term acquisition. The objective of this study is therefore to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a method of debriefing without an instructor (SI) compared to a method of debriefing of team with instructor (AI) on the improvement of a score of non-technical competence (TEAM score) after simulation of a vital emergency in a multidisciplinary team as part of the initial training.

All the DESAR (except the 1st years) and EIADE of the participating centers are eligible. After information on the study and collection of their written consent, the binomials (DESAR + EIADE) will be constituted by drawing lots and randomized by stratification by center, either in debriefing AI or SI.

At D1, they will have a first simulation followed by a debriefing (AI or SI) according to their randomization and immediately after this debriefing, a second simulation. There will be no systematic debriefing behind this second session, but a team of trainers will be able to debrief the binomials that wish to do so. Six months later, the last simulation will take place, followed for all the pairs of an AI debriefing.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Other
盲法
Single (Participant)

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Common Inclusion Criteria
  • Men and women of full age (> 18 years)
  • Informed consent signed
  • Affiliation to or a beneficiary of a French social security scheme.
  • Physician Inclusion Criteria
  • Internal from 3rd to 10th semester anesthesia resuscitation of the CHU of Besançon, Dijon, Lyon or Strasbourg.
  • Inclusion Criteria IADE
  • IADE students from the nursing school of Besançon, Dijon Lyon or Strasbourg.

排除标准

  • Subject without health insurance
  • Pregnant woman
  • Subject being in the exclusion period of another study or planned by the "National Volunteer File".
  • Subject refusing to sign the confidentiality clause
  • Internal first-year anesthesia-resuscitation.

研究组 & 干预措施

debriefing without instructor

Other

Team debriefing without an instructor will be organized as follows. The pairs of participants will be placed in a room with direct access to the video recording of their passage on the simulator. Two documents will be made available to help participants structure their debriefing: one targeting non-technical skills, based on the TEAM Score, and one recalling recommendations on ACR care. Despite its absence at the time of the debriefing, the instructor will be present during the briefing and during the simulation.

干预措施: debriefing without instructor (Other)

debriefing with instructor

Other

The team debriefing with an instructor will begin immediately after the simulator run and will be governed by the principle of "no judgment" described by Rudolph .

A portion of the video of the participants' pass may be reviewed and used to support the debriefing (depending on the utility judged by the debrief). Each center will use its own team of trainers, but it will have a predefined plan and predefined objectives, which are provided in advance in order to obtain a standardized debriefing. Moreover, these trainers will not be beginners but will have some expertise in the pedagogy of simulation. They will have to have a DU in a simulation or pedagogy trainer (recommendations from SofraSim) and will have to carry out 15 debriefings per year

干预措施: debriefing with instructor (Other)

结局指标

主要结局

TEAM SCORE

时间窗: 6 months

TEAM Score is a non-technical skills assessment score. This score consists of four items (leadership, teamwork, task management, overall score). Each of these items is rated from 0 to 4, which is a score of 44, to which is added an overall score of 10 points. This score is validated and reflects teamwork skills \[30\] \[31\] \[32\] \[33\]. The scoring of the TEAM score will be carried out by a pair composed of a doctor in anesthesia-resuscitation and a nurse anesthetist trained and trained beforehand. This notation will be done afterwards simulations thanks to the registration of passage of the binomials on simulators.

次要结局

  • technical score(6 months)
  • sense of self-efficacy (SEP)(6 months)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (2)

Loading locations...

相似试验

Team Debriefing With Instructor vs Team Debriefing... | 临床试验