ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025
Acute Care Nurses' Partnership With Patients to Recognise and Respond to Changes in Patients' Clinical States: A Qualitative Study.
Article 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 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.
- Cognitive biases and contextual factors explaining variability in nurses' fall risk judgements: a multi-centre cross-sectional study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
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
aimTo explore and describe acute care nurses' partnership with patients to recognise and respond to changes in patients' clinical states. Acute care nurses' decisions to partner with patients to recognise deterioration in clinical states and to respond by activating a rapid response system improves patient outcomes. Acutely unwell patients can also experience clinical changes that include improvement and deterioration that does not trigger rapid response system activation over the course of hospitalisation from illness and treatment. How acute care nurses partner with patients in response to improvement and deterioration not triggering a rapid response system is not well-understood.
designAn exploratory, descriptive study underpinned by Tanner's Clinical Judgement Model.
methodsUsing purposive and quota sampling, 20 nurses with direct patient care responsibilities on one medical and one surgical ward in a large Australian hospital were recruited. Nonparticipant observations followed by semistructured interviews were conducted between January and May of 2021. Nurse-patient interactions were observed for 4 h, and verbally described and recorded. Semistructured interviews were recorded and explored nurses' reasoning behind decisions observed. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.
resultsThree themes were identified from the data: nurses checking in for changes; nurses forming judgements; and nurses partnering with patients to respond. Acute care nurses promoted subjective assessment based on patients' safety risks. Patients' participation in response to changes was prioritised based on acute care nurses' judgement of safety.
conclusionPatients receive significant safety benefits when acute care nurses partner with patients in response to their experience of improvement and deterioration during acute illness. Further research should evaluate the sensitivity of subjective cues in patient assessment. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Partnership with patients in assessment and management of improvement and deterioration improves the quality and safety of patient care. Assessment frameworks should equally prioritise the use of objective and subjective cues. Nursing education should promote the safety benefits of patient partnerships in responding to patient changes. REPORTING
methodEquator checklist COREQ. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Data collected included description of patients' interactions with study participants.
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.