The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Debriefing in the Emergency Department After Clinical Events: A Practical Guide
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Emergency Medicine, November 2014
|
| 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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 15 | 29% |
| Spain | 4 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 39% |
| Scientists | 6 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 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 | 331 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 16% |
| Researcher | 35 | 10% |
| Other | 33 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 75 | 22% |
| Unknown | 90 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 128 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 68 | 20% |
| Psychology | 13 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 3% |
| Unknown | 103 | 31% |
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 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#939,800
of 26,365,186 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#484
of 6,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,786
of 269,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#14
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,365,186 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 6,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. 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 269,333 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 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.