Creation and evaluation of a novel, interdisciplinary debriefing program using a design‐based research approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergency department (ED) witnesses the close functioning of an interdisciplinary team in an unpredictable environment. High-stress situations can impact well-being and clinical practice both individually and as a team. Debriefing provides an opportunity for learning, validation, and conversation among individuals who may not typically discuss clinical experiences together. The current study examined how a debriefing program could be designed and implemented in the ED so as to help teams and individuals learn from unique, stressful incidents. METHODS: Based on the theory of workplace-based learning and a design-based research approach, the evolved nature of a debriefing program implemented in the real-life context of the ED was examined. Focus groups were used to collect data. We report the design of the debriefing intervention as well as the program outcomes in terms of provider's self-perceived roles in the program and program impact on provider's self-reported clinical practice as well as the redesign of the program based on said feedback. RESULTS: The themes of barriers to debriefing, provision of perspectives, psychological trauma, and nurturing of staff emerged from focus group sessions. Respondents identified barriers and concerns regarding debriefing, and based on this information, changes were made to the program, including offering of refresher sessions for debriefing, inclusion of additional staff members in the training, and remessaging the purpose of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Data from the study reinforced the need to increase the frequency and availability of debriefing didactics along with clarifying staff roles in the program. Future work will examine continued impact on provider practice and influence on departmental culture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".