PC3121: Debriefing Simulated Events vs. Actual Clinical Events-similarities and Differences

Purpose/Objectives: Debriefing actual clinical events provides important opportunities for improving patient care across pediatric disciplines and practice settings. Understanding differences between simulated event debriefing (SED) and clinical event debriefing (CED) offers insights into creating effective, efficient CED, synergistically integrating simulation/SED and CED, and building a culture of debriefing that integrates with other patient care quality constructs and initiatives. Our objective is to create training resources for CED for pediatric healthcare professionals that (1) compare the similarities and differences between SED and CED, (2) suggest types of clinical events to debrief, and (3) provide strategies for building a culture of debriefing that leverages and enhances other constructs and initiatives to improve patient care.

Design/Methods: A literature review was conducted using MeSH search terms ‘debriefing’, ‘simulation debriefing’, ‘clinical event debriefing’, ‘event review’, ‘after action review’, ’hot debrief’ and ‘cold debrief’. Similarities and differences between SED and CED from the literature review were summarized by consensus of a 13-member American Academy of Pediatrics Task force on CED. We plan to test/validate this content for training module development by conducting structured focus group interviews of participants with SED and CED experience during the pilot phase of the AAP CED Maintenance of Certification Part 4 project set to launch in July 2022. Resource content will be refined based on focus group data. IRB review is in progress.

Results: Similarities and differences between SED and CED goals and roles; logistics; and considerations for conducting debriefings were summarized (Table 1). A strategy for integration of CED, simulation/SED and other QI initiatives was developed (Figure 1). Suggestions for facilitating integration of CED into practice and creating a culture of CED that enhances and leverages other QI programs were generated. Once resource content is refined based on focus group data, the resources will be developed into a module that will be part of the electronic toolkit for participants of the AAP CED Maintenance of Certification Part 4 project.

Conclusion/Discussion: Understanding the similarities and differences between SED and CED, strategies for increasing use of CED, and integrating CED with other QI initiatives offers opportunities to improve patient care. Our data-driven training resources have the potential to guide pediatric healthcare professionals in providing CED training, optimizing CED effectiveness and efficiency, and integrating CED into clinical practice and QI programs.