↓ Skip to main content

Debriefing in the Emergency Department After Clinical Events: A Practical Guide

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
Title
Debriefing in the Emergency Department After Clinical Events: A Practical Guide
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.10.019
Pubmed ID
Authors

David O. Kessler, Adam Cheng, Paul C. Mullan

Abstract

One vital aspect of emergency medicine management is communication after episodes of care to improve future performance through group reflection on the shared experience. This reflective activity in teams is known as debriefing, and despite supportive evidence highlighting its benefits, many practitioners experience barriers to implementing debriefing in the clinical setting. The aim of this article is to review the current evidence supporting postevent debriefing and discuss practical approaches to implementing debriefing in the emergency department. We will address the who, what, when, where, why, and how of debriefing and provide a practical guide for the clinician to facilitate debriefing in the clinical environment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 191 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 17%
Other 27 14%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 45 23%
Unknown 32 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 19%
Psychology 10 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 41 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 18 August 2020.
All research outputs
#478,365
of 15,873,122 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#375
of 5,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,826
of 191,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#8
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,873,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 191,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.