Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29218967›Full record

ReviewCollegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia)

Call for national dialogue: Adapting standards of care in extreme events. We are not ready.

Lynette Cusack, Kristine Gebbie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Lynette Cusack
Kristine Gebbie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical practices are based on a common understanding of nursing's professional standards in all aspects of patient care, no matter what the circumstances are. Circumstances can however, change dramatically due to emergencies, disasters, or pandemics and may make it difficult to meet the standard of care in the way nurses are accustomed. The Australian nursing profession has not yet facilitated a broad discussion and debate at the professional and institutional level about adapting standards of care under extreme conditions, a dialogue which goes beyond the content of basic emergency and disaster preparedness. The purpose of this paper is to encourage discussion within the nursing profession on this important ethical and legal issue. A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to determine the state of the evidence in relation to adapting standards of care under extreme conditions. Content analysis of the literature identified categories related to adapting standards of care that have been considered by individuals or groups that should be considered in Australia, should a dialogue be undertaken. The categories include ethical expectations of professional practice; legal interpretation of care requirements, resource priority between hospital and public health and informing communities. Literature reviews and commentary may provide the background for a national dialogue on the nursing response in an extreme event. However, it is only with the engagement of a broadly representative segment of the professional nursing community that appropriate guidance on adapting standards of care under extreme conditions can be developed and then integrated into the professional worldview of nursing in Australia.

Indexed as

DisastersStandard of CareDecision MakingDisaster PlanningEmergency Medical ServicesHumans

Identifiers

PMID29218967
PMCPMC7110603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.