Pediatric emergency care · 2026
How Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Compares to Traditional Simulation: A Qualitative Investigation of Pediatric Resident Perceptions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tashjian Margaret E, Woods Jason M, Kiger Michelle E, Higgins Jonathan R, Dillon Mairead, Flood Shannon M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a type of within-simulation debriefing that alternates between specific practice and targeted feedback. While RCDP has become increasingly used in conjunction with traditional debriefing, little is known about specific contexts in which RCDP might be most useful. Therefore, our objective was to explore learners' perceptions of RCDP versus traditional simulation, with focus on differences in learning and psychological safety.
METHODS: Pediatric residents at a large pediatric residency program attended simulation trainings with both RCDP and traditional simulations as a part of their pre-established simulation curricula. Graduating residents in the 2024 to 2025 class were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews exploring their experiences with each type of simulation. Transcripts were analyzed via an inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen interviews yielded 2 major themes: (1) Residents identified unique roles for RCDP and traditional simulation. Subthemes included each style teaches different skills, allows for practice with varying cognitive loads, and progresses towards more realistic scenarios. (2) Residents valued the psychological safety of RCDP but also recognized growth through discomfort in traditional simulation. Subthemes for the second major theme included that psychological safety of RCDP is achieved through breaks and repeated practice, and the value of growth through discomfort.
CONCLUSIONS: Both styles of simulation are valuable in curricula but might be best utilized in specific contexts. Educators should intentionally choose a simulation style with special consideration of a simulation's learning objectives and participants' experience.
METHODS: Pediatric residents at a large pediatric residency program attended simulation trainings with both RCDP and traditional simulations as a part of their pre-established simulation curricula. Graduating residents in the 2024 to 2025 class were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews exploring their experiences with each type of simulation. Transcripts were analyzed via an inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen interviews yielded 2 major themes: (1) Residents identified unique roles for RCDP and traditional simulation. Subthemes included each style teaches different skills, allows for practice with varying cognitive loads, and progresses towards more realistic scenarios. (2) Residents valued the psychological safety of RCDP but also recognized growth through discomfort in traditional simulation. Subthemes for the second major theme included that psychological safety of RCDP is achieved through breaks and repeated practice, and the value of growth through discomfort.
CONCLUSIONS: Both styles of simulation are valuable in curricula but might be best utilized in specific contexts. Educators should intentionally choose a simulation style with special consideration of a simulation's learning objectives and participants' experience.