↓ Skip to main content

Faculty Development for Simulation Programs: Five Issues for the Future of Debriefing Training.

Overview of attention for article published in Simulation in Healthcare, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 703)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Faculty Development for Simulation Programs: Five Issues for the Future of Debriefing Training.
Published in
Simulation in Healthcare, June 2015
DOI 10.1097/sih.0000000000000090
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheng, Adam, Grant, Vincent, Dieckmann, Peter, Arora, Sonal, Robinson, Traci, Eppich, Walter

Abstract

Debriefing is widely recognized as a critically important element of simulation-based education. Simulation educators obtain and/or seek debriefing training from various sources, including workshops at conferences, simulation educator courses, formal fellowships in debriefings, or through advanced degrees. Although there are many options available for debriefing training, little is known about how faculty development opportunities should be structured to maintain and enhance the quality of debriefing within simulation programs. In this article, we discuss 5 key issues to help shape the future of debriefing training for simulation educators, specifically the following: (1) Are we teaching the appropriate debriefing methods? (2) Are we using the appropriate methods to teach debriefing skills? (3) How can we best assess debriefing effectiveness? (4) How can peer feedback of debriefing be used to improve debriefing quality within programs? (5) How can we individualize debriefing training opportunities to the learning needs of our educators?

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Unspecified 6 10%
Other 24 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Unspecified 8 14%
Social Sciences 7 12%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 2 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#700,011
of 11,467,888 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#23
of 703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,756
of 234,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,467,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 703 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 234,179 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.