↓ 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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 122 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 18 14%
Other 16 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 9%
Other 47 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Psychology 11 8%
Unspecified 7 5%
Other 8 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,774,760
of 7,890,722 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#743
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,404
of 118,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#30
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,890,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 118,176 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.