Statistics from Altmetric.com
The application of simulation as an educational tool within medicine is increasing. In immersive simulation, it is widely accepted that the post-scenario debrief is a critical component for learning.1 Effective faculty development is therefore required to preserve the quality of debriefing.
Though clear standards have been set out by the Association of Simulated Practice in Healthcare (ASPiH),2 there is little in published literature describing faculty development. NHS Lothian has established a ‘debriefing the debrief’ programme, called ‘The Meta-Debrief Club’ or ‘MDC’. It is available to staff from all backgrounds and levels of experience. Through group reflection, debriefers take part in a regular evaluation of their practice, with constructive feedback from peers.
Here we describe the founding of the MDC, its current format, factors contributing to a successful session, and results achieved. We hope this article and the accompanying online supplementary video will stimulate further discussion regarding faculty development methodology.
Origins of the MDC
The MDC had simple beginnings, with a group of novice debriefers meeting to critically review footage of their debriefing. Over time, a standardised format emerged guided by our core belief that theories and practices applied to simulation participants are equally applicable to faculty learning. Two concepts, in particular, were influential.
First, we considered Ericsson’s technique of ‘deliberate practice’.3 The group had ample opportunity for practice, with responsibility for over 600 simulated scenarios per year. However, simple repetition does not continue to yield improvements in performance. Instead, a process of focused reflection was employed, leading to regular, deliberate refinements.
Second, Kolb’s theory of …
Contributors CO’S and CS-K: conception of the metadebrief club, designed sessions and data collection; drafting and revising the manuscript, creating the video material and approved the final version submitted; agreeable to be accountable for all aspects of the work. DP: conception of the idea, revision of the article manuscript, approved the final version submitted and agreeable to be accountable for all aspects of the work. EP: substantially involved in the analysis and interpretation of data stemming from the concept design. She was involved in drafting the initial article manuscript, revising subsequent drafts, and approval of the final version submitted. She is agreeable to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement We have no additional, unpublished study data.
Collaborators Simon Edgar; Hannah Monaghan; Gillian Nelson; Nathan Oliver; Joe Roberts.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.