Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 12;7(1):40.
doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00236-x.

Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study

Michael Meguerdichian  1   2   3 , Komal Bajaj  4   5 , Rachel Ivanhoe  6 , Yiqun Lin  7 , Audrey Sloma  8 , Ariel de Roche  9 , Brian Altonen  10 , Suzanne Bentley  11   12   13 , Adam Cheng  14   7 , Katie Walker  15
Affiliations

Impact of the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing cognitive aid on facilitator cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality: a pilot study

Michael Meguerdichian et al. Adv Simul (Lond). .

Abstract

Background: The Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) Healthcare Debriefing Tool is a cognitive aid designed to deploy debriefing in a structured way. The tool has the potential to increase the facilitator's ability to acquire debriefing skills, by breaking down the complexity of debriefing and thereby improving the quality of a novice facilitator's debrief. In this pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the tool on facilitators' cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality.

Methods: Fourteen fellows from the New York City Health + Hospitals Simulation Fellowship, novice to the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing Tool, were randomized to two groups of 7. The intervention group was equipped with the cognitive aid while the control group did not use the tool. Both groups had undergone an 8-h debriefing course. The two groups performed debriefings of 3 videoed simulated events and rated the cognitive load and workload of their experience using the Paas-Merriënboer scale and the raw National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index (NASA-TLX), respectively. The debriefing performances were then rated using the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) for debriefing quality. Measures of cognitive load were measured as Paas-Merriënboer scale and compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Measures of workload and debriefing quality were analyzed using mixed-effect linear regression models.

Results: Those who used the tool had significantly lower median scores in cognitive load in 2 out of the 3 debriefings (median score with tool vs no tool: scenario A 6 vs 6, p=0.1331; scenario B: 5 vs 6, p=0.043; and scenario C: 5 vs 7, p=0.031). No difference was detected in the tool effectiveness in decreasing composite score of workload demands (mean difference in average NASA-TLX -4.5, 95%CI -16.5 to 7.0, p=0.456) or improving composite scores of debriefing qualities (mean difference in DASH 2.4, 95%CI -3.4 to 8.1, p=0.436).

Conclusions: The PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing Tool may serve as an educational adjunct for debriefing skill acquisition. The use of a debriefing cognitive aid may decrease the cognitive load of debriefing but did not suggest an impact on the workload or quality of debriefing in novice debriefers. Further research is recommended to study the efficacy of the cognitive aid beyond this pilot; however, the design of this research may serve as a model for future exploration of the quality of debriefing.

Keywords: Cognitive aid; Cognitive load; Debriefing; Faculty development; Skill acquisition; Workload.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Meguerdichian and Dr. Cheng are both faculty for the Debriefing Academy, which provides debriefing courses for healthcare providers. The other authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

    1. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2007;2(2):115–125. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. 2017. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action.
    1. Brett-fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux M, Fleegler E, Cheng A, et al. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2012;7(5):288–294. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182620228. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maestre JM, Rudolph JW. Theories and styles of debriefing: the good judgment method as a tool for formative assessment in healthcare. Rev Española Cardiol (English Ed.) 2014;214(4):216–220. - PubMed
    1. Sawyer T, Eppich W, Brett-fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More than one way to debrief a critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2016;11(3):209–217. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148. - DOI - PubMed