| Title |
Significance of debriefing methods in simulation-based sedation training courses for medical safety improvement in Japan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-3-637 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nobuyasu Komasawa, Takuro Sanuki, Shunsuke Fujiwara, Masanori Haba, Ryusuke Ueki, Yoshiroh Kaminoh, Toshiaki Minami |
| Abstract |
Based on the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Practice Guidelines for Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists (ASA-SED), a sedation training course aimed at improving medical safety was developed by the Japanese Association for Medical Simulation in 2011. This study evaluated the effect of debriefing on participants' perceptions of the essential points of the ASA-SED. A total of 38 novice doctors participated in the sedation training course during the research period. Of these doctors, 18 participated in the debriefing group, and 20 participated in non-debriefing group. Scoring of participants' guideline perceptions was conducted using an evaluation sheet (nine items, 16 points) created based on the ASA-SED. The debriefing group showed a greater perception of the ASA-SED, as reflected in the significantly higher scores on the evaluation sheet (median, 16 points) than the control group (median, 13 points; p < 0.05). No significant differences were identified before or during sedation, but the difference after sedation was significant (p < 0.05). Debriefing after sedation training courses may contribute to better perception of the ASA-SED, and may lead to enhanced attitudes toward medical safety during sedation and analgesia. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,241,019
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,148
of 260,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#86
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 260,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.