Skip to main content

Table 3 Participant evaluation of debrief tool

From: Implementation and facilitation of post-resuscitation debriefing: a comparative crossover study of two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks

 

PC PAUSE (%)

DISCERN (%)

This survey was easy to use

 1 – Strongly disagree

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 3

0 (0.0)

2 (0.6)

 4 – Neutral

9 (2.8)

9 (2.8)

 5

33 (10.1)

24 (7.4)

 6

137 (42.0)

128 (39.4)

 7 – Strongly agree

147 (45.1)

162 (49.8)

The debriefing tool strongly supported the debriefing process

 1 – Strongly disagree

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 3

2 (0.6)

2 (0.6)

 4 – Neutral

13 (4.0)

13 (4.0)

 5

37 (11.4)

28 (8.6)

 6

140 (42.9)

129 (39.4)

 7 – Strongly agree

134 (41.1)

155 (47.4)

Comfort making comments/raising questions during debriefing

 1 – Strongly disagree

1 (0.3)

0 (0.0)

 2

0 (0.0)

2 (0.6)

 3

3 (0.9)

1 (0.3)

 4 – Neutral

12 (3.7)

16 (5.0)

 5

35 (10.8)

22 (6.8)

 6

79 (24.4)

98 (30.3)

 7 – Strongly agree

194 (59.9)

184 (57.0)

Number of identified new opportunities to improve

 None

62 (18.9)

36 (11.7)

 1

79 (24.1)

84 (27.2)

 2

105 (32.0)

94 (30.4)

 3 or more

82 (25.0)

95 (30.7)

Debriefing tool supported emotion support

 0 – No

113 (34.8)

164 (50.0)

 1 – Yes

212 (65.2)

164 (50.0)

Debriefing tool supported team dynamics

 0 – No

34 (10.5)

50 (15.2)

 1 – Yes

291 (89.5)

278 (84.8)

Debriefing tool supported quality improvement/patient safety

 0 – No

36 (11.1)

43 (13.1)

 1 – Yes

289 (88.9)

285 (86.9)

Debriefing tool supported clinical education

 0 – No

126 (38.8)

142 (43.3)

 1 – Yes

199 (61.2)

186 (56.7)

Debriefing tool supported other

 0 – No

320 (98.5)

313 (95.4)

 1 – Yes

5 (1.5)

15 (4.6)