ArticleCJEM2022
A scoping review of barriers, facilitators and tools to escalation of care processes in the emergency department.
Article in CJEM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary accuracy, inter- and intra-rater reliability of a 4-point cervical artery dissection diagnostic decision support tool in an ambulatory setting using real and simulated cases: a quality improvement project.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Barriers to Protocol Adherence in Emergency Departments and Evidence-Based Strategies for Successful Implementation: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEscalation of care is the timely recognition and communication of deterioration in a previously stable patient. Delays in escalating care may lead to unnecessary patient morbidity and mortality. There is currently a paucity of synthesis of work focused on the initiation of escalation of care in the emergency department (ED), where unique challenges may be present. We sought to complete a scoping review to investigate: (1) factors (barriers and/or facilitators) affecting clinicians in escalating care in the ED; and (2) tools that support clinicians in ED escalation of care processes.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review guided by the Arksey & O'Malley framework, and in accordance with PRISMA Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL on November 30th, 2020. Extracted data was analyzed via qualitative content analysis. Review and data abstraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved via consensus meetings with a third reviewer.
resultsOf the 4527 unique records identified, 13 studies met our inclusion criteria. Studies described standard escalation practices including detection, reporting, and response. Factors influencing escalation of care were described on individual (confidence, comfort, and expertise), interpersonal (communication and the nurse-physician relationship), organizational (workload and staffing), and environmental (distractions and layout) levels. Four ED-specific tools for escalation of care were also identified.
conclusionThis scoping review identified 13 studies that contained information on processes, factors influencing and/or tools used to facilitate escalation of care in the ED. They may serve as valuable starting points for ED clinicians and administrators who are building or reforming local escalation of care processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35278212What 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.