SynthesisBMJ open quality2021
Human factors in escalating acute ward care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Human-Controlled Doctor in Virtual Reality Simulation for Sepsis Team Training: Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Comparing human vs. machine-assisted analysis to develop a new approach for Big Qualitative Data Analysis.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- A retrospective records review comparing the care of patients who either avoided or were admitted to an ICU following a ward-based deterioration event.Intensive & critical care nursing · 2025Article
- Nurse by numbers: The impact of early warning systems on nurses' higher-order thinking, a quantitative study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- When Nurses Worry: A Concept Analysis of Intuition in Clinical Deterioration.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Review
- A Realist-Informed Evaluation of a Rapid Response System for Mental State Deterioration in Acute Hospitals: Testing Program Theories Through Interviews.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Successfully initiating an escalation of care in acute ward settings-A qualitative observational study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Observational
- Health care workers' experiences of calling-for-help when taking care of critically ill patients in hospitals in Tanzania and Kenya.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Using NEWS2: an essential component of reliable clinical assessment.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Escalation of care in children at high risk of clinical deterioration in a tertiary care children's hospital using the Bedside Pediatric Early Warning System.BMC pediatrics · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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
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.