↓ Skip to main content

Exploring teams of learners becoming “WE” in the Intensive Care Unit – a focused ethnographic study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring teams of learners becoming “WE” in the Intensive Care Unit – a focused ethnographic study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0414-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Conte, Max Scheja, Hans Hjelmqvist, Maria Jirwe

Abstract

Research about collaboration within teams of learners in intensive care is sparse, as is research on how the learners in a group develop into a team. The aim of this study was to explore the collaboration in teams of learners during a rotation in an interprofessional education unit in intensive care from a sociocultural learning perspective. Focused Ethnographic methods were used to collect data following eight teams of learners in 2009 and 2010. Each team consisted of one resident, one specialist nurse student and their supervisors (n = 28). The material consisted of 100 hours of observations, interviews, and four hours of sound recordings. A qualitative analysis explored changing patterns of interplay through a constant comparative approach. The learners' collaboration progressed along a pattern of participation common to all eight groups with a chronological starting point and an end point. The progress consisted of three main steps where the learners' groups developed into teams during a week's training. The supervisors' guided the progress by gradually stepping back to provide latitude for critical reflection and action. Our main conclusion in training teams of learners how to collaborate in the intensive care is the crucial understanding of how to guide them to act like a team, feel like a team and having the authority to act as a team.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Psychology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 25%
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 19 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,408,178
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,325
of 3,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,007
of 238,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#23
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 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 3,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 238,133 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.