↓ Skip to main content

Post-event debriefings during neonatal care: why are we not doing them, and how can we start?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Perinatology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Post-event debriefings during neonatal care: why are we not doing them, and how can we start?
Published in
Journal of Perinatology, March 2016
DOI 10.1038/jp.2016.42
Pubmed ID
Authors

T Sawyer, D Loren, L P Halamek

Abstract

Post-event debriefings are a foundational behavior of high performing teams. Despite the inherent value of post-event debriefings, the frequency with which they are used in neonatal care is extremely low. If post-event debriefings are so beneficial, why aren't they conducted more frequently? The reasons are many, but solutions are available. In this report, we provide practical advice on conducting post-event debriefing in neonatal care. In addition, we examine the perceived barriers to conducting post-event debriefings, and offer strategies to overcome them. Finally, we consider opportunities to foster a culture change within neonatal care which integrates debriefing as standard daily work. By establishing a safety culture in neonatal care that encourages and facilitates effective post-event debriefings, patient safety can be enhanced and clinical outcomes can be improved.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 31 March 2016; doi:10.1038/jp.2016.42.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Other 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Engineering 4 5%
Mathematics 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 25 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,732,933
of 19,546,162 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Perinatology
#237
of 2,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,502
of 275,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Perinatology
#13
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,546,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 275,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.