Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515238›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2018

Intensive care decision-making: Identifying the challenges and generating solutions to improve inter-specialty referrals to critical care.

Nicola Power, Nicholas R Plummer, Jacqueline Baldwin, Fiona R James, Shondipon Laha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Intensive Care Residents' Views Regarding Ethical Issues and Practices.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Nicola PowerDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6196-1284
Nicholas R PlummerCritical Care Unit, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1239-9253
Jacqueline BaldwinCritical Care Unit, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Fiona R JamesCritical Care Unit, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Shondipon LahaCritical Care Unit, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDecision-making regarding admission to UK intensive care units is challenging. Demand for beds exceeds capacity, yet the need to provide emergency cover creates pressure to build redundancy into the system. Guidelines to aid clinical decision-making are outdated, resulting in an over-reliance on professional judgement. Although clinicians are highly skilled, there is variability in intensive care unit decision-making, especially at the inter-specialty level wherein cognitive biases contribute to disagreement.

methodThis research is the first to explore intensive care unit referral and admission decision-making using the Critical Decision Method interviewing technique. We interviewed intensive care unit (

resultsWe present: (i) a description of the referral pathway; (ii) challenges that appear to derail referrals (i.e. process issues, decision biases, inherent stressors, post-decision consequences) and (iii) potential solutions to improve this process. DISCUSSION: This research provides a foundation upon which interventions to improve inter-specialty decision-making can be based.

Indexed as

critical decision methoddecision-makingIntensive careinter-specialty teamspatient admission

Identifiers

PMID30515238
PMCPMC6259089

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.