Testing the effectiveness of peer facilitated debriefing following high fidelity simulation

Dufrene, Claudine

Saturday, 16 November 2013

Claudine Dufrene, MSN, RN-BC, GNP-BC¹
Anne Young, RN, EdD²
Rae W. Langford, RN, EdD²
Brenda K. Binder, PhD, RN, PNP³
(1)School of Nursing, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
(2)College of Nursing, Texas Woman's University, Houston, TX
(3)Nelda C. Stark College of Nursing, Texas Woman's University, Houston, TX

Learning Objective 1: discuss the use of written examinations as a measure to evaluate student learning.

Learning Objective 2: discuss the effectiveness of peer leaders during debriefing.

Introduction

While debriefing following simulation is the standard practice in nursing education, its effectiveness has not been adequately studied. Few studies have been found examining the effectiveness of different debriefing processes. The aim of this study was to examine if baccalaureate nursing students in a prelicensure program who participate in student facilitated debriefing following high fidelity simulation achieve comparable scores on a HESI© custom examination compared to comparable students who participate in faculty facilitated debriefing following the same activity.

Methods

A two-group post-test only experimental design was used with 182 senior nursing students to examine the effectiveness of peer facilitated debriefing following simulation. Students were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, then participated in a stroke simulation scenario followed by either faculty facilitated or peer facilitated debriefing. Participation in the post-test, a custom HESI® exam, was voluntary. A demographic form was used to collect data on age, gender, and ethnicity of students. Descriptive statistics were run on the demographic data using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 18. An independent t-test was conducted to compare the examination scores between the two groups. The level of significance was set to an alpha of 0.01 for a two-tail directional test.

Findings

Results of the post-examination were as follows: control group (M=78.62, SD = 12.92) and experimental group (M=78.31, SD = 14.34); t(180) = .152, p = .88, two-tailed. This study indicated no significant difference in examination scores between the peer debriefed and faculty debriefed groups.

Conclusions

Additional research examining student outcomes following different methods of debriefing and the use of peer leaders in the laboratory setting are recommended. Findings from continued research will help guide faculty to determine best practices in the use of debriefing.