↓ Skip to main content

How to debrief teamwork interactions: using circular questions to explore and change team interaction patterns

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, November 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
How to debrief teamwork interactions: using circular questions to explore and change team interaction patterns
Published in
Advances in Simulation, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41077-016-0029-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela Kolbe, Adrian Marty, Julia Seelandt, Bastian Grande

Abstract

We submit that interaction patterns within healthcare teams should be more comprehensively explored during debriefings in simulation-based training because of their importance for clinical performance. We describe howcircular questionscan be used for that purpose. Circular questions are based on social constructivism. They include a variety of systemic interviewing methods. The goals of circular questions are to explore the mutual dependency of team members' behavior and recurrent behavior patterns, to generate information, to foster perspective taking, to "fluidize" problems, and to put actions into relational contexts. We describe the nature of circular questions, the benefits they offer, and ways of applying them during debriefings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 117 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Other 13 11%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Psychology 13 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 07 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,503,446
of 25,240,298 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#59
of 270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,997
of 313,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,240,298 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 313,688 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.