Clinical trial NCT03307421: Team Debriefing With Instructor vs Team Debriefing Without Instructor After Simulating a Vital Emergency in a Multidisciplinary Team
Official title: 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
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: UNKNOWN
Phase: NA
Conditions: High Fidelity Simulation Training
Simulation Training
Keywords: simulation
debriefing
team score
multidisciplinarity
DEBRIEF sim II
Lead sponsor: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: ALOUANE Mael
First posted: 2017-10-11
Enrollment: 160
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: 2 parallel groups, stratified by center, randomized by center
Primary purpose: OTHER

Brief summary: 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

Detailed description: 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.

The pairs will be evaluated a posteriori, blinded by trained evaluators, for the 3 sessions on a non-technical competence score the TEAM Score and a technical skill score specialized in the pathology encountered. Finally learners will give their self-efficacy before and after each debriefing, and before the 3rd session.

Throughout the course of the study psychological care will be provided: a clearly identified person who is specialized in this pedagogical technique will be present and each participant will have his / her telephone contact details and the usual structures during a psychological distress.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

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.

Exclusion Criteria:

* 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.

Primary outcomes:
measure: TEAM SCORE
timeFrame: 6 months
Secondary outcomes:
measure: technical score
timeFrame: 6 months
measure: sense of self-efficacy (SEP)
timeFrame: 6 months
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Besançon
country: France
facility: CHU de besançon
Study officials:
References: