| Title |
Implementation of an In Situ Qualitative Debriefing Tool for Resuscitations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Resuscitation, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.12.005 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul C. Mullan, Elizabeth Wuestner, Tarra D. Kerr, Daniel P. Christopher, Binita Patel |
| Abstract |
Multiple guidelines recommend debriefing of resuscitations to improve clinical performance. We implemented a novel standardized debriefing program using a Debriefing In Situ Conversation after Emergent Resuscitation Now (DISCERN) tool. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 201 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 17% |
| Researcher | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 56 | 27% |
| Unknown | 42 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 20% |
| Psychology | 5 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Unknown | 51 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Resuscitation
#3,996
of 5,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,598
of 288,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Resuscitation
#45
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 288,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.