↓ Skip to main content

TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
Title
TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, March 2013
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000917
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela Kolbe, Mona Weiss, Gudela Grote, Axel Knauth, Micha Dambach, Donat R Spahn, Bastian Grande

Abstract

Improving patient safety by training teams to successfully manage emergencies is a major concern in healthcare. Most current trainings use simulation of emergency situations to practice and reflect on relevant clinical and behavioural skills. We developed TeamGAINS, a hybrid, structured debriefing tool for simulation-based team trainings in healthcare that integrates three different debriefing approaches: guided team self-correction, advocacy-inquiry and systemic-constructivist techniques.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 194 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 13%
Other 25 12%
Researcher 23 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 8%
Other 64 32%
Unknown 14 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Psychology 19 9%
Social Sciences 15 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 21 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,873,274
of 15,089,180 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#1,018
of 1,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,837
of 154,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#17
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,089,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 154,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.