Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32599414›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2020

Managing patient preferences and clinical responses in acute pathophysiological deterioration: What do clinicians think treatment escalation plans do?

Carl May, Michelle Myall, Susi Lund, Natasha Campling, Sarah Bogle, Sally Dace, Alison Richardson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Carl MayFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: Carl.May@lshtm.ac.uk.
Michelle MyallNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. Electronic address: m.myall@soton.ac.uk.
Susi LundNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. Electronic address: s.lund@soton.ac.uk.
Natasha CamplingNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. Electronic address: n.c.campling@soton.ac.uk.
Sarah BogleNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. Electronic address: s.j.bogle@soton.ac.uk.
Sally DaceNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. Electronic address: s.dace@soton.ac.uk.
Alison RichardsonNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK; University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Mailpoint 11, Clinical Academic Facility (Room AA102), South Academic Block, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. Electronic address: alison.richardson@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CaregiversPatient PreferenceDecision MakingHumansQualitative ResearchAwareness contextsGoals of carePerformativityShared-decision-makingStatus passageUK

Identifiers

PMID32599414
PMCPMC7369631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.