ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2023
Recommendation-making in the emergency department: A qualitative study of how Canadian emergency physicians guide treatment decisions about resuscitation in critically ill patients.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendation-making in the emergency department: A qualitative study of how Canadian emergency physicians guide treatment decisions about resuscitation in critically ill patients.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Objective: Emergency physicians are frequently responsible for making time-sensitive decisions around the provision of life-sustaining treatment. These decisions can involve goals of care or code status discussion, which will often substantially alter a patient's care pathway. A central part of these conversations that has received relatively little attention are recommendations for care. By proposing a best course of action or treatment via a recommendation, a clinician can ensure that their patients receive care that is concordant with their values. The objective of this study is to explore emergency physicians' attitudes toward recommendations about resuscitation in critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: We recruited Canadian emergency physicians via multiple recruitment strategies to ensure maximum variation sampling. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted until thematic saturation occurred. Participants were asked about their perspectives and experiences with respect to recommendation-making in critically ill patients and to identify areas for improvement in this process in the ED. We used a qualitative descriptive approach and thematic analysis to identify themes around recommendation-making in the ED for critically ill patients. Results: Sixteen emergency physicians agreed to participate. We identified four themes and multiple subthemes. Major themes included identification of the roles and responsibilities of the emergency physician (EP) with respect to making a recommendation, the logistics or process of making a recommendation, barriers to making a recommendation, and how to improve recommendation-making and goals of care conversations in the ED. Conclusion: Emergency physicians provided a range of perspectives on the role of recommendation-making in critically ill patients in the ED. Several barriers to the inclusion of a recommendation were identified and many physicians provided ideas on how to improve goals of care conversations, the recommendation-making process, and ensure that critically ill patients receive care that is concordant with their values.
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.