Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2025
Successfully initiating an escalation of care in acute ward settings-A qualitative observational study.
Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Successfully initiating an escalation of care in acute ward settings-A qualitative observational study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo address knowledge gaps by (i) developing a theoretical understanding of escalation and (ii) identifying escalation success factors.
designNon-participant observations were used to examine deteriorating patient escalation events.
methodsEscalation event data were collected by a researcher who shadowed clinical staff, between February 16th 2021 and March 17th 2022 from two National Health Service Trusts. Events were analysed using Framework Analysis. Escalation tasks were mapped using a Hierarchical Task Analysis diagram and data presented as percentages, frequency and 95% CI.
resultsA total of 38 observation sessions were conducted, totaling 105 h, during which 151 escalation events were captured. Half of these were not early warning score-initiated and resulted from bleeding, infection, or chest pain. Four communication phenotypes were observed in the escalation events. The most common was Outcome Focused Escalation, where the referrer expected specific outcomes like blood cultures or antibiotic prescriptions. Informative Escalations were often used when a triggering patient's condition was of low clinical concern and ranked as the second most frequent escalation communication type. General Concern Escalations occurred when the referrer did not have predetermined expectations. Spontaneous Interaction Escalations were the least frequently observed, occurring opportunistically in communal workspaces.
conclusionHalf of the events were non-triggering escalations and understanding these can inform the design of systems to support staff better to undertake them. Escalation is not homogenous and differing escalation communication phenotypes exist. Informative Escalations represent an organizational requirement to report triggering warning scores and a targeted reduction of these may be organizationally advantageous. Increasing the frequency of Spontaneous Escalations, through hospital designs, may also be beneficial. IMPACT STATEMENT: Our work highlights that a significant proportion of escalation workload occurs without a triggering early warning score and there is scope to better support these with designed systems. Further examination of reducing Informative and increasing Spontaneous Escalations is also warranted. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Extensive PPIE was completed throughout the lifecycle of this study. PPIE members validated the research questions and overarching aims of the overall study. PPIE members contributed to the design of the study reviewed documents and the final data generated.
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.