Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30121604›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Escalation-related decision making in acute deterioration: a retrospective case note review.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Natasha CamplingSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Amanda CummingsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Michelle MyallSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Susi LundSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Carl R MaySchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Neil W PearceUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Alison RichardsonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University of Southampton · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo describe how decision making inter-relates with the sequence of events in individuals who die during admission and identify situations where formal treatment escalation plans (TEPs) may have utility. DESIGN AND

methodsA retrospective case note review using stratified sampling. Two data analysis methods were applied concurrently: directed content analysis and care management process mapping via annotated timelines for each case. Analysis was followed by expert clinician review (n=7), contributing to data interpretation. SAMPLE: 45 cases, age range 38-96 years, 23 females and 22 males. Length of admission ranged from <24 hours to 97 days.

resultsProcess mapping led to a typology of care management, encompassing four trajectories: early de-escalation due to catastrophic event; treatment with curative intent throughout; treatment with curative intent until significant point; and early treatment limits set. Directed content analysis revealed a number of contextual issues influencing decision making. Three categories were identified: multiple clinician involvement, family involvement and lack of planning clarity; all framed by clinical complexity and uncertainty.

conclusionsThe review highlighted the complex care management and related decision-making processes for individuals who face acute deterioration. These processes involved multiple clinicians, from numerous specialities, often within hierarchical teams. The review identified the need for visible and clear management plans, in spite of the frame of clinical uncertainty. Formal TEPs can be used to convey such a set of plans. Opportunities need to be created for patients and their families to request TEPs, in consultation with the clinicians who know them best, outside of the traumatic circumstances of acute deterioration.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingClinical DeteriorationHospitalizationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClinical AuditDeathFamilyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUncertaintyUnited Kingdomdecision-makingde-escalationgoals of carepalliationresuscitationtreatment escalation

Identifiers

PMID30121604
PMCPMC6104759
OpenAlexW2887973334

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.