↓ Skip to main content

More Than One Way to Debrief

Overview of attention for article published in Simulation in Healthcare, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 790)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
Title
More Than One Way to Debrief
Published in
Simulation in Healthcare, June 2016
DOI 10.1097/sih.0000000000000148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taylor Sawyer, Walter Eppich, Marisa Brett-Fleegler, Vincent Grant, Adam Cheng

Abstract

Debriefing is a critical component in the process of learning through healthcare simulation. This critical review examines the timing, facilitation, conversational structures, and process elements used in healthcare simulation debriefing. Debriefing occurs either after (postevent) or during (within-event) the simulation. The debriefing conversation can be guided by either a facilitator (facilitator-guided) or the simulation participants themselves (self-guided). Postevent facilitator-guided debriefing may incorporate several conversational structures. These conversational structures break the debriefing discussion into a series of 3 or more phases to help organize the debriefing and ensure the conversation proceeds in an orderly manner. Debriefing process elements are an array of techniques to optimize reflective experience and maximize the impact of debriefing. These are divided here into the following 3 categories: essential elements, conversational techniques/educational strategies, and debriefing adjuncts. This review provides both novice and advanced simulation educators with an overview of various methods of conducting healthcare simulation debriefing. Future research will investigate which debriefing methods are best for which contexts and for whom, and also explore how lessons from simulation debriefing translate to debriefing in clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Other 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 8%
Other 56 36%
Unknown 12 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 23%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 23 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 17 June 2019.
All research outputs
#549,769
of 14,087,919 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#16
of 790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,286
of 265,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,087,919 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 790 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 265,624 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 93% 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.