Advertisement

PEARLS Debriefing Compared to Standard Debriefing Effects on Nursing Students’ Professional Competence and Clinical Judgment: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Published:October 10, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2022.09.003

      Abstract

      Background

      Debriefing is an important learning component of simulation-based education (SBE) for nursing students. The evidence-based, scripted, and structured debriefing model—Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) is meeting the standard of best practice by using a blended approach in the debriefing process with appropriate integration of feedback, debriefing, and/or guided reflection. Evidence demonstrating that PEARLS promotes better outcomes than other debriefing strategies is lacking. Our study compared PEARLS to a standard debriefing on nursing students’ professional competence and clinical judgment abilities.

      Methods

      A quasi-experimental design was applied to compare differences in the effects of PEARLS (intervention group) and standard debriefing (control group) on nursing students’ self-reported professional competence and clinical judgment in SBE and clinical placement.

      Results

      No significant differences in nursing students’ self-reported professional competence or clinical judgment were found between the two groups. Professional competence and clinical judgment increased significantly within the intervention group, but not the control group.

      Conclusion

      The results provide some support for implementation of PEARLS debriefing in nursing education. Faculty should receive the training and resources necessary for implementation.

      KEYWORDS

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Simulation In Nursing
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Aiken L.H.
        • Sloane D.
        • Griffiths P.
        • Rafferty A.M.
        • Bruyneel L.
        • McHugh M.
        • Consortium &
        Nursing skill mix in European hospitals: Cross-sectional study of the association with mortality, patient ratings, and quality of care.
        BMJ Quality & Safety. 2017; 26: 559https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005567
        • Bajaj K.
        • Meguerdichian M.
        • Thoma B.
        • Huang S.
        • Eppich W.
        • Cheng A.
        The PEARLS healthcare debriefing tool.
        Academic Medicine. 2018; 93: 336https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002035
        • Baxter P.
        • Norman G.
        Self-assessment or self-deception? A lack of association between nursing students' self-assessment and performance.
        Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2011; 67: 2406-2413https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05658.x
        • Booth R.G.
        • Scerbo C.K.
        • Sinclair B.
        • Hancock M.
        • Reid D.
        • Denomy E.
        Exploring learning content and knowledge transfer in baccalaureate nursing students using a hybrid mental health practice experience.
        Nurse Education Today. 2017; 51: 57-62https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.01.006
        • Brislin R.W.
        Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
        Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970; 1: 185-216https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
        • Cant R.P.
        • Cooper S.J.
        Use of simulation-based learning in undergraduate nurse education: An umbrella systematic review.
        Nurse Education Today. 2017; 49: 63-71https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.015
        • Cheng A.
        • Grant V.
        • Dieckmann P.
        • Arora S.
        • Robinson T.
        • Eppich W.
        Faculty development for simulation programs: Five issues for the future of debriefing training.
        Simulation in Healthcare. 2015; 10: 217-222https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000090
        • Cheng A.
        • Grant V.
        • Robinson T.
        • Catena H.
        • Lachapelle K.
        • Kim J.
        • Eppich W.
        The promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS) approach to health care debriefing: A faculty development guide.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016; 12: 419-428https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.05.002
        • Cheng A.
        • Hunt E.A.
        • Donoghue A.
        • Nelson-McMillan K.
        • Nishisaki A.
        • LeFlore J.
        • Stone K.
        • EXPRESS Investigators
        Examining pediatric resuscitation education using simulation and scripted debriefing: A multicenter randomized trial.
        JAMA Pediatrics. 2013; 167: 528https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1389
        • Cheng A.
        • Kessler D.
        • Mackinnon R.
        • Chang T.P.
        • Nadkarni V.M.
        • Hunt E.A.
        • Auerbach M.
        Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: Extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016; 12: iii-xiiihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.04.008
        • Cheng A.
        • Morse K.J.
        • Rudolph J.
        • Arab A.A.
        • Runnacles J.
        • Eppich W.
        Learner-centered debriefing for health care simulation education: Lessons for faculty development.
        Simulation In Healthcare. 2016; 11: 32-40https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000136
        • Craig P.
        • Dieppe P.
        • Macintyre S.
        • Michie S.
        • Nazareth I.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Medical Research Council Guidance
        Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance.
        Bmj. 2008; 337: a1655https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
        • Decker S.
        • Alinier G.
        • Crawford S.B.
        • Gordon R.M.
        • Jenkins D.
        • Wilson C.
        Healthcare simulation standards of best practiceTM The debriefing process.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2021; 58: 27-32https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011
        • DeVellis R.F.
        Scale Development: Theory and Applications (3rd ed. Vol. 26).
        Sage, 2012
        • Eppich W.
        • Cheng A.
        Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS): Development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing.
        Simulation in Healthcare. 2015; 10: 106-115https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000072
        • Fox-Wasylyshyn S.M.
        • El-Masri M.M.
        Handling missing data in self-report measures.
        Research in Nursing and Health. 2005; 28: 488-495https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20100
        • Gardulf A.
        • Florin J.
        • Carlsson M.
        • Leksell J.
        • Lepp M.
        • Lindholm C.
        • Nilsson J.
        The Nurse Professional Competence (NPC) Scale: A tool that can be used in national and international assessments of nursing education programmes.
        Nordic Journal of Nursing Research. 2019; 39: 137-142https://doi.org/10.1177/2057158518824530
        • Gougoulis A.
        • Trawber R.
        • Hird K.
        • Sweetman G.
        ‘Take 10 to talk about it’: Use of a scripted, postevent debriefing tool in a neonatal intensive care unit.
        Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 2020; 56: 1134-1139https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14856
        • Hanshaw S.L.
        • Dickerson S.S.
        High fidelity simulation evaluation studies in nursing education: A review of the literature.
        Nurse Education in Practice. 2020; 46102818https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102818
        • Husebø S.E.
        • O'Regan S.
        • Nestel D.
        Reflective practice and its role in simulation.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2015; 11: 368-375https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.04.005
        • Kristiansen L.
        • Häggström M.
        • Hallin K.
        • Andersson I.
        • Bäckström B.
        Svensk översättning, kvalitativ relevansvärdering och kvantitativ reliabilitetstestning av. [Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric/Swedish translation, qualitative relevance evaluation and quantitative reliability test of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric].
        Nordic Journal of Nursing Research. 2015; 35: 113-122https://doi.org/10.1177/0107408315578397
        • Lasater K.
        Clinical judgment development: Using simulation to create an assessment rubric.
        Journal of Nursing Education. 2007; 46: 496-503https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20071101-04
        • Lee J.
        • Lee H.
        • Kim S.
        • Choi M.
        • Ko I.S.
        • Bae J.
        • Kim S.H.
        Debriefing methods and learning outcomes in simulation nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Nurse Education Today. 2020; 87104345https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104345
        • McNutt R.
        • Tews M.
        • Kleinheksel A.J.
        Student performance during a simulated patient encounter has no impact on debriefer adherence to PEARLS debriefing model.
        Medical Science Educator. 2021; 31: 1141-1148https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01290-2
        • Nash R.
        • Harvey T.
        Student nurse perceptions regarding learning transfer following high-fidelity simulation.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2017; 13: 471-477https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2017.05.010
        • Neill M.A.
        • Wotton K.
        High-fidelity simulation debriefing in nursing education: A literature review.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2011; 7: e161-e168https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2011.02.001
        • Nilsson J.
        • Engström M.
        • Florin J.
        • Gardulf A.
        • Carlsson M.
        A short version of the nurse professional competence scale for measuring nurses’ self-reported competence.
        Nurse Education Today. 2018; 71: 233-239https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.028
        • Niu Y.
        • Liu T.
        • Li K.
        • Sun M.
        • Sun Y.
        • Wang X.
        • Yang X.
        Effectiveness of simulation debriefing methods in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Nurse Education Today. 2021; 107105113https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105113
        • Persico L.
        • Belle A.
        • DiGregorio H.
        • Wilson-Keates B.
        • Shelton C.
        Healthcare simulation standards of best Practicetm facilitation.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2021; 58: 22-26https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.010
        • Ravik M.
        • Havnes A.
        • Bjørk I.T.
        Exploring nursing students’ transfer of peripheral venous cannulation from skills centre to the clinical setting.
        Journal of Nursing Education and Practice. 2014; 5https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v5n3p59
        • Sahin G.
        • Basak T.
        Debriefing methods in simulation-based education.
        Journal of Education and Research in Nursing. 2021; 18: 341-346https://doi.org/10.5152/jern.2021.57431
        • Shadish W.R.
        • Cook T.D.
        • Campbell D.T.
        Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference.
        Houghton Mifflin, 2002
        • Skaug E.-A.
        • Ekman S.
        • Kirchhoff J.W.
        Oversetting, tilpasning og testing av The Nurse Professional Competence Scale. [Adjustment and adaption of the Nurse Professional Competence Scale].
        Nordisk Sygeplejeforskning. 2020; : 164-175https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1892-2686-2020-03-03
        • Tanner C.
        Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgment in nursing.
        Journal of Nursing Education. 2006; 45: 204-211https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
        • Vreugdenhil J.
        • Spek B.
        Development and validation of Dutch version of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in hospital practice: An instrument design study.
        Nurse Education Today. 2018; 62: 43-51https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.013
        • Watts P.I.
        • McDermott D.S.
        • Alinier G.
        • Charnetski M.
        • Ludlow J.
        • Horsley E.
        • Nawathe P.A.
        Healthcare simulation standards of best practiceTM simulation design.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2021; 58: 14-21https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.009
        • White H.
        • Hayes C.
        • Axisa C.
        • Power T.
        On the other side of simulation: Evaluating faculty debriefing styles.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2021; 61: 96-106https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.004
      1. WHO, (2009). Global standards for the initial education of professional nurses and midwives. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44100/WHO_HRH_HPN_08.6_eng.pdf;jsessionid=86B4B513E66DCDB38E5E0986E7FAC61B?sequence=1 (Accessed date 21 June 2022).

        • Yang F.
        • Wang Y.
        • Yang C.
        • Zhou M.H.
        • Shu J.
        • Fu B.
        • Hu H.
        Improving clinical judgment by simulation: A randomized trial and validation of the Lasater clinical judgment rubric in Chinese.
        BMC Medical Education. 2019; 19: 20https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1454-9