↓ 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 (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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 58 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 96 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Other 15 15%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 33 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Psychology 9 9%
Unspecified 6 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 6 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#262,446
of 12,123,624 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#251
of 4,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,773
of 205,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#12
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,123,624 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 205,002 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.