Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35278212›Full record

ArticleCJEM2022

A scoping review of barriers, facilitators and tools to escalation of care processes in the emergency department.

Matthew Hacker Teper, Nikki Naghavi, Laura Pozzobon, Daniel Lee, Camilla Parpia, Ahmed Taher

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors.

Matthew Hacker TeperTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada. Matthew.HackerTeper@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8764-0777
Nikki NaghaviSchool of Medicine, Ross University, Bridgetown, Barbados.
Laura PozzobonQuality, Safety and Clinical Adoption, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Daniel LeeTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Camilla ParpiaTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Ahmed TaherDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CommunicationEmergency Service, HospitalHumansCommunicationEmergency departmentEscalation of carePatient deterioration

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.