↓ Skip to main content

Interprofessional teamwork in the trauma setting: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, November 2013
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 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
Interprofessional teamwork in the trauma setting: a scoping review
Published in
Human Resources for Health, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-11-57
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly Courtenay, Susan Nancarrow, David Dawson

Abstract

Approximately 70 to 80% of healthcare errors are due to poor team communication and understanding. High-risk environments such as the trauma setting (which covers a broad spectrum of departments in acute services) are where the majority of these errors occur. Despite the emphasis on interprofessional collaborative practice and patient safety, interprofessional teamworking in the trauma setting has received little attention. This paper presents the findings of a scoping review designed to identify the extent and nature of this literature in this setting. The MEDLINE (via OVID, using keywords and MeSH in OVID), and PubMed (via NCBI using MeSH), and CINAHL databases were searched from January 2000 to April 2013 for results of interprofessional teamworking in the trauma setting. A hand search was conducted by reviewing the reference lists of relevant articles. In total, 24 published articles were identified for inclusion in the review. Studies could be categorized into three main areas, and within each area were a number of themes: 1) descriptions of the organization of trauma teams (themes included interaction between team members, and leadership); 2) descriptions of team composition and structure (themes included maintaining team stability and core team members); and 3) evaluation of team work interventions (themes included activities in practice and activities in the classroom setting).Descriptive studies highlighted the fluid nature of team processes, the shared mental models, and the need for teamwork and communication. Evaluative studies placed a greater emphasis on specialized roles and individual tasks and activities. This reflects a multiprofessional as opposed to an interprofessional model of teamwork. Some of the characteristics of high-performing interprofessional teams described in this review are also evident in effective teams in the community rehabilitation and intermediate care setting. These characteristics may well be pertinent to other settings, and so provide a useful foundation for future investigations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 227 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 22%
Student > Bachelor 26 11%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Other 46 20%
Unknown 44 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 66 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 55 24%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 6%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Psychology 11 5%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 47 21%

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 07 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,970,677
of 22,197,930 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#225
of 1,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,075
of 211,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#13
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,197,930 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 1,124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 211,670 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.