↓ Skip to main content

“Thinking on your feet”—a qualitative study of debriefing practice

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, April 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 (#43 of 233)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
36 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
“Thinking on your feet”—a qualitative study of debriefing practice
Published in
Advances in Simulation, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41077-016-0011-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristian Krogh, Margaret Bearman, Debra Nestel

Abstract

Debriefing is a significant component of simulation-based education (SBE). Regardless of how and where immersive simulation is used to support learning, debriefing has a critical role to optimise learning outcomes. Although the literature describes different debriefing methods and approaches that constitute effective debriefing, there are discrepancies as to what is actually practised and how experts or experienced debriefers perceive and approach debriefing. This study sought to explore the self-reported practices of expert debriefers. We used a qualitative approach to explore experts' debriefing practices. Peer-nominated expert debriefers who use immersive manikin-based simulations were identified in the healthcare simulation community across Australia. Twenty-four expert debriefers were purposively sampled to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews lasting 45-90 min. Interviews were transcribed and independently analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Codes emerging through the data analysis clustered into four major categories: (1)Values: ideas and beliefs representing the fundamental principles that underpinned interviewees' debriefing practices. (2)Artistry: debriefing practices which are dynamic and creative. (3)Techniques: the specific methods used by interviewees to promote a productive and safe learning environment. (4)Development: changes in interviewees' debriefing practices over time. The "practice development triangle" inspired by the work of Handal and Lauvas offers a framework for our themes. A feature of the triangle is that thevaluesof expert debriefers provide a foundation for associatedartistryandtechniques. This framework may provide a different emphasis for courses and programmes designed to support debriefing practices where microskill development is often privileged, especially those microskills associated withtechniques(plan of action, creating a safe environment, managing learning objectives, promoting learner reflection and co-debriefing). Across the levels in the practice development triangle, the importance of continuing professional development is acknowledged. Strengths and limitations of the study are noted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 133 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Other 15 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Other 37 27%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 18%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 26 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,094,770
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#43
of 233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,729
of 300,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 300,331 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them