↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 135 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Researcher 19 13%
Other 18 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 8%
Other 54 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Psychology 13 9%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Unspecified 7 5%
Other 7 5%

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
#3,584,740
of 12,467,785 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#992
of 1,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,817
of 144,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#25
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,467,785 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 144,276 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.