Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38227127›Full record

ReviewCVIR endovascular2024

Enhancing your practice: debriefing in interventional radiology.

Kara Fitzgerald, Jesse Knight, Karim Valji

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CVIR endovascular, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kara FitzgeraldDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. kmfitzmd@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0846-4015
Jesse KnightDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Karim ValjiDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

LEARNING

objectivesReview the history of debriefing and provide an Interventional Radiologist (IR) specific framework for leading an effective debrief.

backgroundA debrief is often regarded as a meeting with persons who were involved in a stressful, traumatic and/or emotionally challenging situation to review processes, communicate concerns or gather feedback. The goals of these sessions can be for learning/quality improvement (QI) or psychological/emotional support, or a mix of both. Debriefing after tough situations has become a standard tool of many medical specialties, such as surgery, critical care and emergency medicine, with specialty specific literature available. However, there is a paucity of Interventional Radiology specific literature available for debriefing techniques. CLINICAL FINDINGS/PROCEDURE DETAILS: We will review the history and types of debriefing and why a debrief could be considered. We will provide a framework for leading a successful debrief in Interventional Radiology.

conclusionDebriefing can be a useful tool for learning and QI as well as psychological or emotional support after a challenging or tough situation. Debriefing can address multiple variables and can stylistically be tailored to suit specific needs. IRs have an opportunity to take a leadership role in debriefing, providing comfort and quality improvement through communication and support.

Indexed as

BurnoutCommunicationDebriefingInterventional radiologyQuality improvementSecond victimTeamwork

Identifiers

PMID38227127
PMCPMC10792148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.