Comparing two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks: a randomized cross-over simulation study

BACKGROUND: Post-resuscitation debriefing (PRD) enhances individual and team performance in emergency care, thereby improving patient outcomes and provider well-being. Despite support from the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association, the optimal PRD framework remains undefined. This study compares how team members experience PRD when conducted using either the DISCERN or Post-Code Pause (PCP) debriefing framework in pre-hospital cardiac arrest simulations. METHODS: In a randomized cross-over study, 40 medical doctors participated in four advanced life support (ALS) simulation scenarios. Participants acted exclusively within their usual roles as team leaders, while the remaining team members performed standardized roles in accordance with the scenario scripts. Each participant experienced two DISCERN and two PCP debriefings, with the order randomized. The primary outcome was the total score on the Debriefing Experience Scale (DES), with item scores as secondary outcomes. Linear models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to account for repeated measures when comparing the mean scores between the debriefing frameworks. RESULTS: A total of 158 DES questionnaires were analyzed. Mean total DES scores were 4.15 (4.02; 4.28) for PCP and 4.16 (4.02; 4.29) for DISCERN (p = 0.93 for the comparison). These scores indicate a favorable debriefing experience for both frameworks. At the DES item level, no statistically significant differences were observed between frameworks, except for perceived physical comfort in the debriefing environment, which was rated significantly higher for DISCERN (DISCERN = 4.44 (4.27; 4.62), PCP = 4.13 (3.96; 4.30), p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: DISCERN and PCP provide similarly favorable debriefing experiences following simulated cardiac arrest scenarios, with no significant difference in overall DES scores. These findings suggest that both frameworks can be implemented without compromising perceived debriefing quality. Further research should include more professionally diverse participant samples and assess long-term debriefing outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Center UZ Leuven, S65846 September 2021.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Advances in Simulation
Published
2026-07-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-026-00460-9
Primary Topic
Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks: a randomized cross-over simulation study

Domien Vanhonacker, Walther N. van Mook, Philippe Dewolf, Steffen Fieuws et al.
Advances in Simulation
Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
article

Comparing two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks: a randomized cross-over simulation study

Domien Vanhonacker, Walther N. van Mook, Philippe Dewolf, Steffen Fieuws, Jill Van In, Frederik Marynen, Jorg Roosen, Iwan C.C. van der Horst, Marco Garcia van Bijsterveld
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Post-resuscitation debriefing (PRD) enhances individual and team performance in emergency care, thereby improving patient outcomes and provider well-being. Despite support from the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association, the optimal PRD framework remains undefined. This study compares how team members experience PRD when conducted using either the DISCERN or Post-Code Pause (PCP) debriefing framework in pre-hospital cardiac arrest simulations. METHODS: In a randomized cross-over study, 40 medical doctors participated in four advanced life support (ALS) simulation scenarios. Participants acted exclusively within their usual roles as team leaders, while the remaining team members performed standardized roles in accordance with the scenario scripts. Each participant experienced two DISCERN and two PCP debriefings, with the order randomized. The primary outcome was the total score on the Debriefing Experience Scale (DES), with item scores as secondary outcomes. Linear models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to account for repeated measures when comparing the mean scores between the debriefing frameworks. RESULTS: A total of 158 DES questionnaires were analyzed. Mean total DES scores were 4.15 (4.02; 4.28) for PCP and 4.16 (4.02; 4.29) for DISCERN (p = 0.93 for the comparison). These scores indicate a favorable debriefing experience for both frameworks. At the DES item level, no statistically significant differences were observed between frameworks, except for perceived physical comfort in the debriefing environment, which was rated significantly higher for DISCERN (DISCERN = 4.44 (4.27; 4.62), PCP = 4.13 (3.96; 4.30), p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: DISCERN and PCP provide similarly favorable debriefing experiences following simulated cardiac arrest scenarios, with no significant difference in overall DES scores. These findings suggest that both frameworks can be implemented without compromising perceived debriefing quality. Further research should include more professionally diverse participant samples and assess long-term debriefing outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Center UZ Leuven, S65846 September 2021.

Advances in Simulation
Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL), Statistics Belgium (BE), Maastricht University (NL), Mathys (Netherlands) (NL), KU Leuven (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.