ArticleBMJ open2013
Identifying intensive care unit discharge planning tools: protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research trends in readiness for hospital discharge between 2002 and 2021: A bibliometric analysis.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular system and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): mutual injuries and unexpected outcomes.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2021Review
- Thrombus Composition and Efficacy of Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke.Stroke · 2021Review
- A phenomenological study on the experiences of patient transfer from the intensive care unit to general wards.PloS one · 2021Article
- Ward Capacity Strain: A Novel Predictor of Delays in Intensive Care Unit Survivor Throughput.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Article
- Comprehensive overview of computer-based health information tailoring: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Variation in rates of ICU readmissions and post-ICU in-hospital mortality and their association with ICU discharge practices.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- The family experiences of in-hospital care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI): a validation study.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Improving clinical handover between intensive care unit and general ward professionals at intensive care unit discharge.Intensive care medicine · 2015Review
- Ethical problems in intensive care unit admission and discharge decisions: a qualitative study among physicians and nurses in the Netherlands.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- Improving critical care discharge summaries: a collaborative quality improvement project using PDSA.BMJ quality improvement reports · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransitions of care between providers are vulnerable periods in healthcare delivery that expose patients to preventable errors and adverse events. Patient discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a medical or surgical hospital ward is one of the most challenging and high risk transitions of care. Approximately 1 in 12 patients discharged will be readmitted to ICU or die before leaving the hospital. Many more patients are exposed to unnecessary healthcare, adverse events and/or are disappointed with the quality of their care. Our objective is to conduct a scoping review by systematically searching the literature to identify ICU discharge planning tools and their supporting evidence-base including barriers and facilitators to their use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic searching of the published health literature will be conducted to identify the existing ICU discharge planning tools and supporting evidence. Literature (research and non-research) reporting on the tools used to facilitate decision making and/or communication at ICU discharge with patients of any age will be included. Outcomes will include adverse events and provider and patient/family-reported outcomes. Two investigators will independently review the abstracts (screen 1) to identify those meeting the inclusion criteria and then independently assess the full text articles (screen 2) to determine if they meet the inclusion criteria. Data collection will include information on citations and identified tools. A quality assessment will be performed on original research studies. A descriptive summary will be developed for each tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our scoping review will synthesise the literature for ICU discharge planning tools and identify the opportunities for knowledge to action and gaps in evidence where primary evidence is necessary. This will serve as the foundational element in a multistep research programme to standardise and improve the quality of care provided to patients during ICU discharge. Ethics approval is not required for this study.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.