Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gute Nachrede – Debriefing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Simulation in der Medizin

Zusammenfassung

Debriefing, die Nachbesprechung eines Simulationsszenarios, ist ein sehr wichtiger Bestandteil des simulationsgestützten Lernens. Viele der Reflexionen und Einsichten, die sich im Zusammenhang mit der Simulation ergeben, werden hier bewusst und explizit gemacht. Debriefings haben verschiedene Phasen, in der der Debriefer mit den Teilnehmern daran arbeitet, die Lernziele der Simulation umzusetzen. Gerade in den letzten Jahren bekam diese Kursphase viel Aufmerksamkeit, und eine Reihe von Verfahren wurde entwickelt. Gemeinsam ist diesen Modellen in der Regel, dass die Gruppe sich einen Überblick darüber verschafft, was im Szenario konkret geschah, dann einzelne Aspekte genauer analysiert und schließlich beschreibt, welche Lerneinsichten und Änderungsintentionen sich aus der Diskussion ergeben haben. Viele Faktoren beeinflussen, wie ein Debriefing abläuft, z. B. die Gruppendynamik, kulturelle Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten innerhalb der Gruppe oder die Erfahrung der Debriefer und Teilnehmer. Zunehmend werden Debriefingmethoden, die in der Simulation entwickelt wurden, auch in klinischen Zusammenhängen eingesetzt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Dieckmann P, Molin FS, Lippert A, Ostergaard D (2009) The art and science of debriefing in simulation: ideal and practice. Med Teach 31(7):287–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rall M, Manser T, Howard SK (2000) Key elements of debriefing for simulator training. Eur J Anaesthesiol 17(8):516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ (2008) Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med 15(11):1010–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fanning RM, Gaba DM (2007) The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc 2(2):115–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardner R (2013) Introduction to debriefing. Semin Perinatol 37(3):166–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Krogh K, Bearman M, Nestel D (2016) Thinking on your feet – a qualitative study of debriefing practice. Adv Simul 14:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  7. Steinwachs B (1992) How to facilitate a debriefing. Simul Gaming 23(2):186–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dismukes RK, Gaba DM, Howard SK (2006) So many roads: facilitated debriefing in healthcare. Simul Healthc 1(1):23–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchell AM, Sakraida TJ, Kameg K (2003) Critical incident stress debriefing: implications for best practice. Disaster Manage Response 1(2):46–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lewis GW (2012) Critical incident stress and trauma in the workplace. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Giddens JB (2008) Critical incident stress debriefing/psychological debriefing: a critical review of the literature. ProQuest. http://www.zotero.org/groups/trauma_and_ptsd/items/itemKey/P3FP57DV. Zugegriffen: 12. Okt. 2017

  12. Sawyer TL, Deering S (2013) Adaptation of the US Army’s after-action review for simulation debriefing in healthcare. Simul Healthc 8(6):388–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brody JL, Gluck JP, Aragon AS (2000) Participants’ understanding of the process of psychological research: debriefing. Ethics Behav 10(1):13–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brockbank A, McGill I (2012) Facilitating reflective learning. Kogan Page, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kolb AY, Kolb DA (2005) Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Acad Manag 4(2):193–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lederman LC (1992) Debriefing: toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simul Gaming 23(2):145–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rystedt H, Lindwall O (2004) The interactive construction of learning foci in simulation-based learning environments: a case study of an anaesthesia course. Psychol J 2(2):168–188

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lemke DS, Fielder EK, Hsu DC, Doughty CB (2016) Improved team performance during pediatric resuscitations after rapid cycle deliberate practice compared with traditional debriefing: a pilot study. Pediatr Emerg Care 6. E-publication ahead of print: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27741071

  19. Schön D (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kolbe M, Weiss M, Grote G, Knauth A, Dambach M, Spahn DR et al (2013) TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings. BMJ Qual Safety 22(7):541–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eppich W, Cheng A (2015) Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc 10(2):106–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Christensen MD, Rieger K, Tan S, Dieckmann P, Ostergaard D, Watterson LM (2015) Remotely versus locally facilitated simulation-based training in management of the deteriorating patient by newly graduated health professionals. Simul Healthc 10(6):352–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheng A, Morse KJ, Rudolph J, Arab AA, Runnacles J, Eppich W (2016) Learner-centered debriefing for health care simulation education: lessons for faculty development. Simul Healthc 11(1):32–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roh YS, Kelly M, Ha EH (2016) Comparison of instructor-led versus peer-led debriefing in nursing students. Nurs Health Sci 18(2):238–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB (2006) There’s no such thing as „nonjudgmental“ debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc 1(1):49–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Al Sabei SD, Lasater K (2016) Simulation debriefing for clinical judgment development: a concept analysis. Nurse Educ Today 45:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lavoie P, Pepin J, Cossette S (2015) Development of a post-simulation debriefing intervention to prepare nurses and nursing students to care for deteriorating patients. Nurse Educ Pract 5:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hunter LA (2016) Debriefing and feedback in the current healthcare environment. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 30(3):174–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McDonnell LK, Jobe KK, Dismukes RK (1997) Facilitating LOS debriefings: a training manual – part 1: an introduction to facilitation. http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/nasa/losdbrf/losdbrf1.htm. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field

  30. Eppich WJ, Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould JM, Siddall VJ, Cheng A (2015) Structuring feedback and debriefing to achieve mastery learning goals. Acad Med 90(11):1501–1508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Reed SJ (2015) Written debriefing: evaluating the impact of the addition of a written component when debriefing simulations. Nurse Educ Pract 15(6):543–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kutzin JM, Janicke P (2015) Incorporating rapid cycle deliberate practice into nursing staff continuing professional development. J Contin Educ Nurs 46(7):299–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould JM, Nelson-McMillan KL, Bradshaw JH, Diener-West M, Perretta JS et al (2014) Pediatric resident resuscitation skills improve after „rapid cycle deliberate practice“ training. Resuscitation 85(7):945–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McMullen M, Wilson R, Fleming M, Mark D, Sydor D, Wang L, Zamora J, Phelan R, Burjorjee JE (2016) „Debriefing-on-demand“: a pilot assessment of using a „pause button“ in medical simulation. Simul Healthc 11(3):157–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Heukelom JN, Begaz T, Treat R (2010) Comparison of postsimulation debriefing versus in-simulation debriefing in medical simulation. Simul Healthc 5(2):91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Der Sahakian G, Alinier G, Savoldelli G (2015) Setting conditions for productive debriefing. Simul Gaming 9:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dieckmann P, Gaba D, Rall M (2007) Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc 2(3):183–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Laucken U (2003) Theoretische Psychologie. Denkformen und Sozialpraxen. BIS, Oldenburg

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dieckmann P, Reddersen S, Zieger J, Rall M (2008) A structure for video-assisted debriefing in simulator-based training of crisis resource management. In: Kyle R, Murray BW (Hrsg) Clinical simulation: operations, engineering, and management. Academic, Burlington, S 667–676

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Rall M, Gaba DM, Howard SK, Dieckmann P (2015) Human performance and patient safety. In: Miller R (Hrsg) Miller’s anesthesia. Elsevier, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  41. Park CW, Holtschneider ME (2016) Interprofessional simulation: debriefing from the patient’s point of view. J Nurs Prof Dev 32(1):44–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dieckmann P, Krage R (2013) Simulation and psychology: creating, recognizing and using learning opportunities. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 26(6):714–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R (2014) Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Simul Healthc 9(6):339–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hartmann M, Rieger M, Funk R (2007) Zielgerichtet moderieren. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  45. Seifert JW (2000) Visualisieren – Präsentieren – Moderieren, 14. Aufl. Gabal, Offenbach

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dieckmann P, Rall M, Sadler C (2008) What competence do simulation instructors need? Minerva Anestesiol 74(Suppl 1 al 10):277–281

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bergmann B (1999) Training für den Arbeitsprozess. Entwicklung und Evaluation aufgaben- und zielgruppenspezifischer Trainingsprogramme. vdf, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reason J (1994) Menschliches Versagen. Psychologische Risikofaktoren und moderne Technologien. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hollnagel PE (2014) Safety-I and safety-II. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  50. Weizsäcker C von, Weizsäcker U von (1984) Fehlerfreundlichkeit. In: Kornwachs K (Hrsg) Offenheit – Zeitlichkeit – Komplexität: Zur Theorie der offenen Systeme. Campus, Frankfurt, S 167–201

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wehner T, Mehl K, Dieckmann P (2010) Fehlhandlungen und Prävention. In: Kleinbeck U (Hrsg) Enzyklopädie der Psychologie – Themenbereich D Praxisgebiete – Serie III Wirtschafts-, Organisations- und Arbeitspsychologie, Bd 1: Arbeitspsychologie. Hogrefe, Göttingen, S 785–820

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wehner T (1992) Sicherheit als Fehlerfreundlichkeit. Arbeits- und Sozialpsychologische Befunde für eine kritische Technikbewertung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen

    Google Scholar 

  53. Edmondson AC (2011) Strategies of learning from failure. Harv Bus Rev 89(4):48–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mehl K (1993) Über einen funktionalen Aspekt von Handlungsfehlern – Was lernt man wie aus Fehlern. LIT, Münster

    Google Scholar 

  55. Dörner D, Schaub H (1994) Errors in planning and decision-making and the nature of human information processing. Appl Psychol 43(4):433–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hollnagel E (2012) The ETTO principle: efficiency-thoroughness trade-off. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hollnagel E (2012) FRAM: the functional resonance analysis method. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  58. Raemer D, Anderson M, Cheng A (2011) Research regarding debriefing as part of the learning process. Simul Healthc 6(Suppl):52–57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21817862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Savoldelli GL, Naik VN, Park J, Joo HS, Chow R, Hamstra SJ (2006) Value of debriefing during simulated crisis management: oral versus video-assisted oral feedback. Anesthesiology 105(2):279–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Farooq O, Thorley-Dickinson VA, Dieckmann P et al (2017) Comparison of oral and video debriefing and its effect on knowledge acquisition following simulation-based learning. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn 3:48–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kittelberger R, Freisleben I (1994) Lernen mit Video und Film. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  62. Iedema R, Mesman J, Carroll K (2013) Visualising health care practice improvement. Radcliffe, London

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lahlou S, Le Bellu S, Boesen-Mariani S (2015) Subjective evidence based ethnography: method and applications. Integ Psychol Behav Sci 49(2):216–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. O’Meara P, Munro G, Williams B, Cooper S (2015) Developing situation awareness amongst nursing and paramedicine students utilizing eye tracking technology and video debriefing techniques: a proof of concept paper. Int Emerg Nurs 23(2):94–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ahmed RA, Atkinson SS, Gable B, Yee J, Gardner AK (2016) Coaching from the sidelines. Simul Healthc 11(5):334–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Christensen MD, Rieger K, Tan S, Dieckmann P, Ostergaard D, Watterson LM (2015) Remotely versus locally facilitated simulation-based training in management of the deteriorating patient by newly graduated health professionals: a controlled trial. Simul Healthc 10(6):352–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Mann JH (1956) Experimental evaluations of role playing. Psychol Bull 53(3):227–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bateson G (1994) Eine Theorie des Spiels und der Phantasie. Vortrag auf der APA Regional Research Conference in Mexico City am 11. März 1954. In: Bateson G (Hrsg) Ökologie des Geistes: anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven, 5. Aufl. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, S 241–260

    Google Scholar 

  69. Brown JF (1933) Über die dynamischen Eigenschaften der Realitäts- und Irrealitätsschichten. Psychol Forsch 18:2–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Dieckmann P, Krage R (2013) Simulation and psychology: creating, recognizing and using learning opportunities. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 26(6):714–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Dieckmann P, Rall M, Eich C, Schnabel K, Jünger J, Nikendei C (2008) Role playing as an essential element of simulation procedures in medicine. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 102(10):642–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Dieckmann P (2009) Simulation settings for learning in acute medical care. In: Dieckmann P (Hrsg) Using simulations for education, training and research. Pabst, Lengerich, S 40–138

    Google Scholar 

  73. Goffman E (1977) Rahmenanalyse. Ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  74. Johnstone K (2000) Improvisation und Theater. Die Kunst spontan und kreativ zu agieren. Alexander, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  75. Schaller R (2001) Das große Rollenspiel-Buch. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  76. Cheng A, Grant V, Dieckmann P, Arora S, Robinson T, Eppich W (2015) Faculty development for simulation programs: five issues for the future of debriefing training. Simul Healthc 18;10(4):217–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Dieckmann P, Rall M (2008) Designing a scenario as a simulated clinical experience: the TüPASS Scenario Script. In: Kyle R, Murray BW (Hrsg) Clinical simulation: operations, engineering, and management. Academic, Burlington, S 541–550

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  78. Dieckmann P, Lippert A, Rall M, Glavin R (2010) When things do not go as expected: scenario life savers. Simul Healthc 5(4):219–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Rudolph JW, Foldy EG, Robinson T, Kendall S, Taylor SS, Simon R (2013) Helping without harming. Simul Healthc 8(5):304–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ameln F von, Kramer J (2007) Organisationen in Bewegung bringen. Handlungsorientierte Methoden für die Personal-, Team und Organisationsentwicklung. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ameln F von, Gerstmann R, Kramer J (2004) Psychodrama. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  82. Dieckmann P, Yliniemi P (2012) Sociodrama and psychodrama and their relation to simulation in health care. In: Poikela E, Poikela P (Hrsg) Towards simulation pedagogy. Developing nursing simulation in a European network. Rovaniemi University of Applied Sciences, Rovaniemi, S 40–49

    Google Scholar 

  83. Garden AL, Le Fevre DM (2015) Debriefing after simulation-based non-technical skill training in healthcare: a systematic review of effective practice. Anaesth Intensive Care 43(3):300–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Cheng A, Eppich W, Grant V, Sherbino J, Zendejas B, Cook DA (2014) Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ 48(7):657–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Nyström S, Dahlberg J, Edelbring S, Hult H, Dahlgren MA (2016) Debriefing practices in interprofessional simulation with students: a sociomaterial perspective. BMC Med Educ 16:148

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Cheng A, Palaganas J, Eppich W, Rudolph J, Robinson T, Grant V (2015) Co-debriefing for simulation-based education: a primer for facilitators. Simul Healthc 10(2):69–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Cheng A, Hunt EA, Donoghue A, Nelson-McMillan K, Nishisaki A, Leflore J et al (2013) Examining pediatric resuscitation education using simulation and scripted debriefing: a multicenter randomized trial. JAMA Pediatric 167(6):528–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Kolbe M, Grande B, Spahn DR (2015) Briefing and debriefing during simulation-based training and beyond: content, structure, attitude and setting. Best Prac Res Clin Anaesthesiol 29(1):87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Vaihinger H (1927) Die Philosophie des Als Ob. System der theoretischen, praktischen und religiösen Fiktionen der Menschheit auf Grund eines idealistischen Positivismus. Scientia, Aalen

    Google Scholar 

  90. Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux M, Fleegler E, Cheng A et al (2012) Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare: development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc 7(5):288–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Lewin K (2013) Vorsatz Wille und Bedürfnis. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  92. Lahlou S (2017) Installation theory. The societal construction and regulation of individual behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  93. Waznonis AR (2014) Methods and evaluations for simulation debriefing in nursing education. J Nurs Educ 53(8):459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Geißler KA (1997) Anfangssituationen – Was man tun und besser lassen sollte, 7. Aufl. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  95. Geißler KA (1992) Schlußsituationen – Die Suche nach einem guten Ende. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  96. Runnacles J, Thomas L, Sevdalis N, Kneebone R, Arora S (2014) Development of a tool to improve performance debriefing and learning: the paediatric Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) tool. Postgrad Med J 90(1069):613–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Kihlgren P, Spanager L, Dieckmann P (2015) Investigating novice doctors’ reflections in debriefings after simulation scenarios. Med Teach 37(5):437–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Mariani B, Cantrell MA, Meakim C, Prieto P, Dreifuerst KT (2013) Structured debriefing and students’ clinical judgment abilities in simulation. Clin Simul Nurs 9(5):e147–e155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Dufrene C, Young A (2014) Successful debriefing – best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: a literature review. Nur Educ Today 34(3):372–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Levett-Jones T, Lapkin S (2014) A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation debriefing in health professional education. Nur Educ Today 34(6):e58–e63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Glavin RJ (2016) Lessons for simulation-based education from social psychology. Adv Simul 1:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Eppich W, Mullan PC, Brett-Fleegler M, Cheng A (2016) Let’s talk about it. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med 17(3):200–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Couper K, Salman B, Soar J, Finn J, Perkins GD (2013) Debriefing to improve outcomes from critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 39(9):1513–1523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Francis DO, Eavey RD, Wright HV, Sinard RJ (2016) Incorporating postoperative debriefing into surgical education. J Surg Educ 73(3):448–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Nestel D, Bearman M (2014) Simulated patient methodology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  106. Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, Chang TP, Nadkarni VM, Hunt EA et al (2016) Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Adv Simul 1(1):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Center for Human Resources, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Dänemark

    Peter Dieckmann

Authors
  1. Peter Dieckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Dieckmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Anästhesiologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany

    Michael St.Pierre

  2. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin Klinikum Coburg, Coburg, Germany

    Georg Breuer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dieckmann, P. (2018). Gute Nachrede – Debriefing. In: St.Pierre, M., Breuer, G. (eds) Simulation in der Medizin. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54566-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54566-9_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54565-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54566-9

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation