Identifying best practice guidelines for debriefing in surgery: a tri-continental study

A Comprehensive Methodology for Examining the Impact of Surgical Team Briefings and Debriefings on Teamwork

The adoptions of briefing and debriefing protocols have evolved from the Joint Commission’s initiative to improve communication and safety in the operating room. Briefing normally occurs prior to incision and is used to discuss and confirm critical information, while debriefing occurs during or after surgery. Debriefing provides a unique opportunity for individuals and teams to immediately reflect on their performance, allowing them to more easily identify errors and develop plans to improve their next performance. Studies have shown that using briefings and debriefings improve communication and teamwork. However, there is still much to learn about the value of both for surgical teams. This paper presents a robust methodology for examining and measuring the impacts of surgical team briefings and debriefings on teamwork. The methodology includes (1) audio/video recording the surgical care process, (2) prospective observations using a validated electronic data collection tool, (3) pre- and post-surgery surveys, and (4) individual surgical team member interviews. The current paper describes the methodology to obtain a robust and comprehensive data set for analyzing the impacts of briefing and debriefing on teamwork; the results of the surgeries recorded using this methodology will be presented in subsequent papers.

Operation debrief: a SHARP improvement in performance feedback in the operating room

OBJECTIVES

To explore the current status of performance feedback (debriefing) in the operating room and to develop and evaluate an evidence-based, user-informed intervention termed "SHARP" to improve debriefing in surgery.

BACKGROUND

Effective debriefing is a key educational technique for optimizing learning in surgical settings. However, there is a lack of a debriefing culture within surgery. Few studies have prospectively evaluated educational interventions to improve the quality and quantity of performance feedback in surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospective pre- and post-study of 100 cases involving 22 trainers (attendings) and 30 surgical residents (postgraduate years 3-8). A trained researcher assessed the quality of debriefings provided to the trainee using the validated Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) tool alongside ethnographic observation. Following the first 50 cases, an educational intervention termed "SHARP" was introduced and measures repeated for a further 50 cases. User satisfaction with SHARP was assessed via questionnaire. Twenty percent of the cases were observed independently by a second researcher to test interrater reliability.

RESULTS

Interrater reliability for OSAD was excellent (ICC = 0.994). Objective scores of debriefing (OSAD) improved significantly after the SHARP intervention: median pre = 19 (range, 8-31); median post = 33 (range, 26-40), P < 0.001. Strong correlations between observer (OSAD) and trainee rating of debriefing were obtained (median ρ = 0.566, P < 0.01). Ethnographic observations also supported a significant improvement in both quality and style of debriefings. Users reported high levels of satisfaction in terms of usefulness, feasibility, and comprehensiveness of the SHARP tool.

CONCLUSIONS

SHARP is an effective and efficient means of improving performance feedback in the operating room. Its routine use should be promoted to optimize workplace-based learning and foster a positive culture of debriefing and performance improvement within surgery.

Surgical debriefing: a reliable roadmap to completing the patient safety cycle

Morbidity and mortality due to preventable medical errors are a disastrous reality in medicine. Debriefing, a process that allows individuals to discuss team performance in a constructive, supportive environment, has been linked to improved performance in various medical and surgical fields, including improvements in specific procedures, teamwork and communication, and error identification. However, the neurosurgical literature on this topic is limited. The authors review the debriefing literature in the field of medicine, with a specific emphasis on the operating room, and they report their own institutional experience with a debriefing module, from invention to pilot implementation, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The authors share the challenges and lessons learned from their quality improvement project. The field of neurosurgery would undoubtedly benefit from embracing debriefing, as its potential has been established in other medical specialties and can serve as a valuable role in immediately learning from mistakes. The authors hope that their colleagues can learn from this experience and improve their own.

Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams: an interview study of the provider perspective

BACKGROUND

It is becoming a standard practice worldwide for cancer patients to be discussed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT or 'tumour board') in order to formulate an expert-derived management plan. Evidence suggests that MDTs do not always work optimally in making clinical decisions and that not all MDT decisions get implemented into care. We investigated factors influencing decision-making and decision implementation in cancer MDTs.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with expert MDT members of Urological and Gastro-Intestinal tumours of 3 London (UK) hospitals. The standardised interview protocol assessed MDT experts' views on decision-making, barriers to reaching a decision and implementing it into care, and interventions to improve this process. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a standardised approach. Emergent themes were identified by 2 clinical coders and tabulated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants participated in the study and data collection achieved 'saturation' (i.e., similar themes raised by different participants). Barriers to clinical decision-making included: inadequate clinical information; lack of investigation results; non-attendance of key members; teleconferencing failures. Barriers to implementation of MDT recommendations included: non-consideration of patients' choices or co-morbidities; disease progression at the time of implementation. Proposed interventions included improving the information available for the discussion through a standardised proforma; improving video-conferencing; reducing the MDT caseload (e.g., via selective MDT review of certain patients); and including patients more in the decision process.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increasing drive to improve the clinical role of the MDT within cancer care. This study demonstrates the main barriers that MDTs face in deciding on and, importantly, implementing a management plan. Further research should prospectively evaluate interventions to enhance translation of MDT decision-making into cancer care and thus to expedite and improve care.

Objective structured assessment of debriefing: bringing science to the art of debriefing in surgery

OBJECTIVE

: To identify the features of effective debriefing and to use this to develop and validate a tool for assessing such debriefings.

INTRODUCTION

: Simulation-based training has become an accepted means of surgical skill acquisition. A key component of this is debriefing-yet there is a paucity of research to guide best practice.

METHODS

: Phase 1-Identification of best practice and tool development. A search of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases identified current evidence on debriefing. End-user input was obtained through 33 semistructured interviews conducted with surgeons (n = 18) and other operating room personnel (n = 15) from 3 continents (UK, USA, Australia) using standardized qualitative methodology. An expert panel (n = 7) combined the data to create the Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) tool. Phase 2-Psychometric testing. OSAD was tested for feasibility, reliability, and validity by 2 independent assessors who rated 20 debriefings following high-fidelity simulations.

RESULTS

: Phase 1: 28 reports on debriefing were retrieved from the literature. Key components of an effective debriefing identified from these reports and the 33 interviews included: approach to debriefing, learning environment, learner engagement, reaction, reflection, analysis, diagnosis of strengths and areas for improvement, and application to clinical practice. Phase 2: OSAD was feasible, reliable [inter-rater ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient) = 0.88, test-retest ICC = 0.90], and face and content valid (content validity index = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

: OSAD provides an evidence-based, end-user informed approach to debriefing in surgery. By quantifying the quality of a debriefing, OSAD has the potential to identify areas for improving practice and to optimize learning during simulation-based training.