Emotional Intelligence: A Model of Pluricentric Emotional Dispersion of Those Involved in Change Management Within a Work Organisation

Martinčić, Sanja Gutić

doi:10.2507/ijva.3.2.8.41

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We propose shifting away from terminologies which are currently used such as ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ which are problematic because of unintentional connotations of psychological impact. For example, some authors position ‘hot’ debriefing as an opportunity for participants to quickly share emotional responses22 40 70 which inadvertently associates the debrief with heated emotions reflective of a stressful situation and potential psychological risk 84 85. Whereas others indicate ‘hot’ simply reflects a ‘short, team-based discussion immediately following an incident’38 that occurs ‘then and there’ 86.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What and when to debrief: a scoping review examining interprofessional clinical debriefing

Paxino,

Szabo,

Marshall

et al. 2023

BMJ Qual Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionClinical debriefing (CD) improves teamwork and patient care. It is implemented across a range of clinical contexts, but delivery and structure are variable. Furthermore, terminology to describe CD is also inconsistent and often ambiguous. This variability and the lack of clear terminology obstructs understanding and normalisation in practice. This review seeks to examine the contextual factors relating to different CD approaches with the aim to differentiate them to align with the needs of different clinical contexts.MethodsArticles describing CD were extracted from Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, PubMed, PsychINFO and Academic Search Complete. Empirical studies describing CD that involved two or more professions were eligible for inclusion. Included papers were charted and analysed using the Who-What-When-Where-Why-How model to examine contextual factors which were then used to develop categories of CD. Factors relating to what prompted debriefing and when debriefing occurred were used to differentiate CD approaches.ResultsForty-six papers were identified. CD was identified as either prompted or routine, and within these overarching categories debriefing was further differentiated by the timing of the debrief. Prompted CD was either immediate or delayed and routine CD was postoperative or end of shift. Some contextual factors were unique to each category while others were relatively heterogeneous. These categories help clarify the alignment between the context and the intention of CD.ConclusionsThe proposed categories offer a practical way to examine and discuss CD which may inform decisions about implementation. By differentiating CD according to relevant contextual factors, these categories may reduce confusion which currently hinders discourse and implementation. The findings from this review promote context-specific language and a shift away from conceptions of CD that embody a one-size-fits-all approach.

show abstract