ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2020
Managing patient preferences and clinical responses in acute pathophysiological deterioration: What do clinicians think treatment escalation plans do?
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- "You like to be in control of your own destiny to a degree, don't you?": conscientious autonomy and planning for future care with dementia.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Experiences of using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in English general practice: a qualitative study among key primary health and social care professionals, patients, and their relatives.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Public attitudes to emergency care treatment plans: a population survey of Great Britain.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Autonomy & advocacy in planning for a medical emergency: Adults with a learning disability and family carers' experiences and perceptions of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process.NIHR open research · 2024Article
- Collaboration between nurses and doctors in the decision-making process when considering ending the life-prolonging treatment of intensive care patients.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Using the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) in care homes: a qualitative interview study.Age and ageing · 2022Article
- Translational framework for implementation evaluation and research: a normalisation process theory coding manual for qualitative research and instrument development.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- An Inverted Container in Containing and Not Containing Hospitalized Patients-A Multidisciplinary Narrative Inquiry.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Creating pre-conditions for change in clinical practice: the influence of interactions between multiple contexts and human agency.Journal of health organization and management · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment Escalation Plans (TEPs) are paper and electronic components of patients' clinical record that are intended to encourage patients and caregivers to contribute in advance to decisions about treatment escalation and de-escalation at times of loss of capacity. There is now a voluminous literature on patient decision-making, but in this qualitative study of British clinicians preparing to implement a new TEP, we focus on the ways that they understood it as much more than a device to promote patient awareness of the potential for pathophysiological deterioration and to elicit their preferences about care. Working through the lens of Callon's notion of agencements, and elements of May and Finch's Normalisation Process Theory, we show how clinicians saw the TEP as an organising device that enabled translation work to elicit individual preferences and so mitigate risks associated with decision-making under stress; and transportation work to make possible procedures that would transport agreed patterns of collective action around organisations and across their boundaries and to mitigate risks that resulted from relational and informational fragmentation. The TEP promoted these shifts by making possible the restructuring of negotiated obligations between patients, caregivers, and professionals, and by restructuring practice governance through promoting rules and resources that would form expectations of professional behaviour and organisational activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.