↓ Skip to main content

Briefing and debriefing during simulation-based training and beyond: Content, structure, attitude and setting

Overview of attention for article published in Bailliere's Best Practice & Research, Clinical Anaesthesiology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
Title
Briefing and debriefing during simulation-based training and beyond: Content, structure, attitude and setting
Published in
Bailliere's Best Practice & Research, Clinical Anaesthesiology, January 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.bpa.2015.01.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela Kolbe, Bastian Grande, Donat R. Spahn

Abstract

In this article, we review the debriefing literature and point to the dilemma that although debriefings especially intend to enhance team (rather than individual) learning, it is particularly this team setting that poses risks for debriefing effectiveness (e.g., preference-consistent information sharing, lack of psychological safety inhibiting structured information sharing, ineffective debriefing models). These risks can be managed with a mindful approach with respect to content (e.g., specific learning objectives), structure (e.g., reactions phase, analysis phase, summary phase), attitude (e.g., honesty, curiosity, holding the trainee in positive regard) and setting (e.g., briefings to provide orientation and establish psychological safety). We point to the potential of integrating systemic methods such as circular questions into debriefings, discuss the empirical evidence for debriefing effectiveness and highlight the importance of faculty development.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 294 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 11%
Other 23 8%
Researcher 20 7%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Other 91 30%
Unknown 57 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 59 20%
Psychology 20 7%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 29 10%
Unknown 69 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 May 2022.
All research outputs
#7,993,771
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Bailliere's Best Practice & Research, Clinical Anaesthesiology
#117
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,798
of 361,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bailliere's Best Practice & Research, Clinical Anaesthesiology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 361,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them