Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33637554›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open quality2021

Human factors in escalating acute ward care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Jody Ede, Tatjana Petrinic, Verity Westgate, Julie Darbyshire, Ruth Endacott, Peter J Watkinson

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patients and staff perspectives on hospital ward strain and its impacts on patient care and the workforce: a mixed-methods systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jody EdeAdult Intensive Care Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK jody.ede@ouh.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7289-6991
Tatjana PetrinicBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Verity WestgateNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Julie DarbyshireNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Ruth EndacottPlymouth University, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4352-4600
Peter J WatkinsonNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-3927
University of Oxford · GBAustralian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUIntensive Care Society · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR300509Department of Health [UK]Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT-103703/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying how human factors affect clinical staff recognition and managment of the deteriorating ward patient may inform process improvements. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify (1) how human factors affect ward care escalation (2) gaps in the current literature and (3) critique literature methodologies.

methodsWe undertook a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of care escalation studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL from inception to September 2019. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment-Development and Evaluation and Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool to assess study quality.

resultsOur search identified 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Confidence in findings was moderate (20 studies) to high (4 studies). In 16 studies, the ability to recognise changes in the patient's condition (soft signals), including skin colour/temperature, respiratory pattern, blood loss, personality change, patient complaint and fatigue, improved the ability to escalate patients. Soft signals were detected through patient assessment (looking/listening/feeling) and not Early Warning Scores (eight studies). In contrast, 13 studies found a high workload and low staffing levels reduced staff's ability to detect patient deterioration and escalate care. In eight studies quantifiable deterioration evidence (Early Warning Scores) facilitated escalation communication, particularly when referrer/referee were unfamiliar. Conversely, escalating concerning non-triggering patients was challenging but achieved by some clinical staff (three studies). Team decision making facilitated the clinical escalation (six studies).

conclusionsEarly Warning Scores have clinical benefits but can sometimes impede escalation in patients not meeting the threshold. Staff use other factors (soft signals) not captured in Early Warning Scores to escalate care. The literature supports strategies that improve the escalation process such as good patient assessment skills. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104745.

Indexed as

Critical CareHospitalsHumansQualitative ResearchWorkloadcontinuous quality improvementcritical caredecision makinghuman factorsmedical education

Identifiers

PMID33637554
PMCPMC7919590
OpenAlexW3129740467

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.