↓ 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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 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 228 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 225 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Other 30 13%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Other 56 25%
Unknown 35 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 20%
Psychology 12 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 48 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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
#538,123
of 17,682,922 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#389
of 5,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,887
of 195,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#8
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,682,922 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 5,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. 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 195,414 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 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.