↓ 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, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
254 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, March 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 254 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%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 248 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 13%
Other 19 7%
Researcher 19 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 85 33%
Unknown 34 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 20%
Psychology 19 7%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 45 18%

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 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,390,293
of 21,152,972 outputs
Outputs from Bailliere's Best Practice & Research, Clinical Anaesthesiology
#89
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,521
of 243,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bailliere's Best Practice & Research, Clinical Anaesthesiology
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,152,972 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 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 71% 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 243,816 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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