Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29956339›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2018

'Who does this patient belong to?' boundary work and the re/making of (NSTEMI) heart attack patients.

Helen Cramer, Jacki Hughes, Rachel Johnson, Maggie Evans, Christi Deaton, Adam Timmis, Harry Hemingway, Gene Feder, Katie Featherstone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Helen CramerCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jacki HughesCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Rachel JohnsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Maggie EvansCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Christi DeatonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Adam TimmisDepartment of Cardiology, Barts and The London NHS Trust, London, UK.
Harry HemingwayUCL Partners, Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research, London, UK.
Gene FederCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Katie FeatherstoneSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 15/136/67Department of Health DRF-2013-06-034Department of Health HS&DR/13/10/80Department of Health HS&DR/15/136/67Department of Health PB-PG-0909-20262Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This ethnography within ten English and Welsh hospitals explores the significance of boundary work and the impacts of this work on the quality of care experienced by heart attack patients who have suspected non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) /non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Beginning with the initial identification and prioritisation of patients, boundary work informed negotiations over responsibility for patients, their transfer and admission to different wards, and their access to specific domains in order to receive diagnostic tests and treatment. In order to navigate boundaries successfully and for their clinical needs to be more easily recognised by staff, a patient needed to become a stable boundary object. Ongoing uncertainty in fixing their clinical classification, was a key reason why many NSTEMI patients faltered as boundary objects. Viewing NSTEMI patients as boundary objects helps to articulate the critical and ongoing process of classification and categorisation in the creation and maintenance of boundary objects. We show the essential, but hidden, role of boundary actors in making and re-making patients into boundary objects. Physical location was critical and the parallel processes of exclusion and restriction of boundary object status can lead to marginalisation of some patients and inequalities of care (A virtual abstract of this paper can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA).

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesHospitalsQuality of Health CareAnthropology, CulturalEnglandHumansNon-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionRegistriesRisk AssessmentWalesemergency careethnographyheart diseasehospitalsquality of care

Identifiers

PMID29956339
PMCPMC6282527

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.