Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38019420›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2024

A Principle-Based Approach to Visual Identification Systems for Hospitalized People with Dementia.

T V Brigden, C Mitchell, K Kuberska, A Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

T V BrigdenPHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, England. tanya.brigden@phgfoundation.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8416-1754
C MitchellPHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, England.
K KuberskaThe Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, England.
A HallPHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large proportion of hospital inpatients are affected by cognitive impairment, posing challenges in the provision of their care in busy, fast-paced acute wards. Signs and symbols, known as visual identifiers, are employed in many U.K. hospitals with the intention of helping healthcare professionals identify and respond to the needs of these patients. Although widely considered useful, these tools are used inconsistently, have not been subject to full evaluation, and attract criticism for acting as a shorthand for a routinized response. In order for visual identifiers to be used effectively in acute care settings, thorough consideration must be given to the ethical and legal issues that are engaged in this context, and their potential benefits and harms must be weighed and balanced. This paper proposes a set of legal and ethical principles that can be used to guide the implementation of visual identifiers. Together, these principles provide a framework applicable in the design and implementation phases to systematically identify relevant considerations arising from the use of these tools. We outline some tensions that arise between principles and conclude that selecting a preferred moral framework could help to guide decision-making, as does clarity around the purpose and objectives of the identifier.

Indexed as

DementiaDecision MakingHospitalizationHumansInpatientsMoralsPatient Identification SystemsSymbolismUnited KingdomAgeingDementiaEthical principlesHospital careUnited KingdomVisual identification systems

Identifiers

PMID38019420
PMCPMC11289159

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.