Qualitative study explores debriefer feedback factors influencing acceptance among faculty, highlighting relational culture and growth mindset.
Introduction Effective simulation debriefing fosters reflective practice and enhanced learning outcomes. Although various debriefing frameworks and debriefer competency evaluation tools exist, less is known about the experience of giving and receiving debriefer feedback. The aims of this study were to explore simulation facilitators' perspectives of engaging in debriefer feedback conversations and to identify factors influencing the acceptance or rejection of the feedback. Methods A qualitative interpretive description approach, informed by action research, was used. Focus groups were conducted with 27 faculty participants to capture their experience of giving and receiving debriefer feedback. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify key patterns in faculty perceptions of the debriefer feedback conversations. Results The following 4 themes captured faculty perspectives of effective debriefer feedback: (1) establishing and maintaining a relational culture, (2) embracing a growth mindset, (3) creating a safe space for self-reflection, and (4) remaining objective and goal oriented. Faculty valued feedback for self-reflection and professional development, emphasizing the importance of trust, respect, and psychological safety. A strong relational culture, growth mindset, and safe environment enabled feedback givers and receivers to engage meaningfully with constructive feedback, lean into practical objectives, and remain future focused. Conclusions Effective debriefer feedback extends beyond structured frameworks and competency tools; it also depends on relational culture and implementation processes. When situated within a supportive and collegial environment and delivered via an integrated approach that prioritizes relationships and a growth mindset, debriefer feedback can be a valuable strategy for faculty development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Epp et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: