Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31099118›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2020

Implementing an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to intensive care: Results of feasibility testing in three NHS hospitals.

Sophie Rees, Christopher Bassford, Jeremy Dale, Zoe Fritz, Frances Griffiths, Helen Parsons, Gavin D Perkins, Anne Marie Slowther

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Sophie ReesWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4399-2049
Christopher BassfordWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Jeremy DaleWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9256-3553
Zoe FritzCambridge University Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9403-409X
Frances GriffithsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-1438
Helen ParsonsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2765-3728
Gavin D PerkinsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3027-7548
Anne Marie SlowtherWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND

objectivesDecisions about whether to refer or admit a patient to an intensive care unit (ICU) are clinically, organizationally, and ethically challenging. Many explicit and implicit factors influence these decisions, and there is substantial variability in how they are made, leading to concerns about access to appropriate treatment for critically ill patients. There is currently no guidance to support doctors making these decisions. We developed an intervention with the aim of supporting doctors to make more transparent, consistent, patient-centred, and ethically justified decisions. This paper reports on the implementation of the intervention at three NHS hospitals in England and evaluates its feasibility in terms of usage, acceptability, and perceived impact on decision making.

methodsA mixed method study including quantitative assessment of usage and qualitative interviews.

resultsThere was moderate uptake of the framework (28.2% of referrals to ICU across all sites during the 3-month study period). Organizational structure and culture affected implementation. Concerns about increased workload in the context of limited resources were obstacles to its use. Doctors who used it reported a positive impact on decision making, with better articulation and communication of reasons for decisions, and greater attention to patient wishes. The intervention made explicit the uncertainty inherent in these decisions, and this was sometimes challenging. The patient and family information leaflets were not used.

conclusionsWhile it is feasible to implement an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to ICU, embedding the intervention into existing organizational culture and practice would likely increase adoption. The doctor-facing elements of the intervention were generally acceptable and were perceived as making ICU decision making more transparent and patient-centred. While there remained difficulties in articulating the clinical reasoning behind some decisions, the intervention offers an important step towards establishing a more clinically and ethically sound approach to ICU admission.

Indexed as

Critical CareState MedicineDecision MakingEnglandFeasibility StudiesHospitalsHumansIntensive Care UnitsReferral and ConsultationUncertaintyacceptabilitydecision makingfeasibilityimplementationintensive careintervention

Identifiers

PMID31099118
PMCPMC7003751

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.