Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31833178›Full record

ArticleNursing in critical care2020

A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting.

Jody Ede, Emma Jeffs, Sarah Vollam, Peter Watkinson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing in critical care, 2020. 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
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient and family activated escalation systems: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jody EdeNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.ORCID 0000-0001-7289-6991
Emma JeffsEmergency Department, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sarah VollamNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
Peter WatkinsonNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBRoyal Children's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background"Failure to Rescue" includes failing to prevent avoidable patient deterioration and death. Despite its use, delays in care escalation still affect patient outcomes. AIMS AND

objectiveThe aim of this qualitative service evaluation was to map the barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care in the acute ward setting and identify those that are modifiable.

designA total of 55 hours of qualitative observations were completed to capture care escalation events. These were conducted at two hospital sites in one National Health Service trust.

methodsObservations were iterative, with research team meetings being used to discuss the data and future methods. Field notes were analysed thematically by two researchers, extracting data on barriers and facilitators to escalation of care.

resultsClinical nursing staff challenged the sensitivity and specificity of Early Warning Scores, describing tool failings in certain clinical scenarios. Staff did not escalate based on the alerting Early Warning Scores alone but used other clinical factors, such as bleeding, which are not necessarily captured in the scoring systems. Staff frequently did not re-escalate low-level scores. Patient and non-patient factors identified as posing barriers to escalation were complex care needs, patient outlier status, and involvement of multiple care teams. Factors negatively affecting the chain of communication during escalation were team tension, staffing levels, and inadequate handover.

conclusionThis service evaluation identified barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care in the acute ward setting. Unlike other studies, we found that re-escalation or tracking of deterioration was problematic. Patients identified as being at a higher risk of escalation failure included complex patients, outliers, and patients with multiple care teams. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This service evaluation demonstrates continuing health care communication barriers. Patient groups (complex patients and outliers) risk process failures during escalation. This can be applied in clinical practice by staff anticipating problems in these patients, documenting clear escalation pathways.

Indexed as

Clinical DeteriorationCommunicationDecision MakingHospital Rapid Response TeamState MedicineHospitalsHumansQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomacute warddeteriorationescalation of careobservationsqualitative

Identifiers

PMID31833178
PMCPMC7217245
OpenAlexW2995725404

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.