Supporting accomplished facilitation: examining the use of appreciative inquiry to inform the development of learning resources for medical educators

Abstract

This paper examines the use of appreciative inquiry (AI) to guide development of web-based learning resources for medical educators who facilitate simulation-based learning experiences for doctors-in-training. AI can be viewed as a positive form of action research, which seeks to avoid deficit-based analyses and solutions, and commonly associated defensiveness. The use of AI to guide research and curriculum development has hitherto received scant attention.

Simulated medical practice allows learners’ needs to take top priority because simulated patients replace real patients (whose care would otherwise be top priority). Each episode of simulated clinical practice is followed by facilitated debriefing. Facilitators complete an initial ‘train the trainers’ course (typically one or three days). Our learning resources aimed to complement and extend initial courses.

AI informed data collection and analysis. It focused attention on identifying and understanding what was good about contemporary debriefing practices. We identified examples of practical wisdom and designed resources to help make these more transparent and accessible to all facilitators. Selected video records and interview excerpts demonstrated key points. We found opportunities to introduce ideas that would extend facilitators’ expertise.

We critique AI as an approach to action research and curriculum development, and recommend further use of AI in other contexts.

Keywords:

• simulation
• debriefing
• facilitation
• medical education
• faculty development
• appreciative inquiry

Acknowledgements

The development of the learning materials was commissioned by the Simulation and Technology-enhanced Learning Initiative from the London Deanery and NHS London www.steli.londondeanery.ac.uk. The project grant was awarded to Dr Chris Sadler, Barts and The London NHS Trust, D.F. and E.J.B.

The study received ethical approval from Queen Mary University London.

Contributions: D.F. and E.J.B. designed the study, D.F. was Principal Investigator, and P.M. led data collection and analysis. This paper was jointly written by P.M. and D.F. E.J.B. contributed additional material and revisions.

Notes

1. See www.aspih.org.uk.

2. See www.sesam-web.org.

3. See www.ssih.org.