↓ 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 (#12 of 743)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
42 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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 42 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 69 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 23%
Other 12 16%
Unspecified 9 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 62%
Unspecified 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 28 December 2018.
All research outputs
#420,673
of 12,719,839 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#12
of 743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,849
of 264,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,719,839 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 743 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 264,231 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 94% 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.