Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28988176›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Implementing communication and decision-making interventions directed at goals of care: a theory-led scoping review.

Amanda Cummings, Susi Lund, Natasha Campling, Carl R May, Alison Richardson, Michelle Myall

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Amanda CummingsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Susi LundFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Natasha CamplingFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Carl R MayFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Alison RichardsonFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Michelle MyallFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify the factors that promote and inhibit the implementation of interventions that improve communication and decision-making directed at goals of care in the event of acute clinical deterioration. DESIGN AND

methodsA scoping review was undertaken based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley for conducting this type of review. Searches were carried out in Medline and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to identify peer-reviewed papers and in Google to identify grey literature. Searches were limited to those published in the English language from 2000 onwards. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and only papers that had a specific focus on implementation in practice were selected. Data extracted were treated as qualitative and subjected to directed content analysis. A theory-informed coding framework using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was applied to characterise and explain implementation processes.

resultsSearches identified 2619 citations, 43 of which met the inclusion criteria. Analysis generated six themes fundamental to successful implementation of goals of care interventions: (1) input into development; (2) key clinical proponents; (3) training and education; (4) intervention workability and functionality; (5) setting and context; and (6) perceived value and appraisal.

conclusionsA broad and diverse literature focusing on implementation of goals of care interventions was identified. Our review recognised these interventions as both complex and contentious in nature, making their incorporation into routine clinical practice dependent on a number of factors. Implementing such interventions presents challenges at individual, organisational and systems levels, which make them difficult to introduce and embed. We have identified a series of factors that influence successful implementation and our analysis has distilled key learning points, conceptualised as a set of propositions, we consider relevant to implementing other complex and contentious interventions.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingPatient Care PlanningQuality ImprovementEmergency Medical ServicesHumansResuscitationceilings of caredecision-makinggoals of careimplementation scienceNormalisation Process Theoryscoping reviewtreatment escalation plans

Identifiers

PMID28988176
PMCPMC5640076

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.