| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 13% |
| Australia | 3 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Myanmar | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 28% |
| Scientists | 6 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 533 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 533 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 85 | 16% |
| Other | 44 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 42 | 8% |
| Researcher | 38 | 7% |
| Other | 122 | 23% |
| Unknown | 159 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 193 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 89 | 17% |
| Psychology | 15 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 1% |
| Other | 39 | 7% |
| Unknown | 177 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 20 March 2023.
All research outputs
#859,735
of 23,884,093 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#14
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,133
of 343,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,884,093 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 1,088 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 343,567 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 95% 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.