ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Shared decision-making with older people on TReatment Escalation planning for Acute deterioration in the emergency Medical Setting - Observed (STREAMS-O): an ethnographic study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making is increasingly expected in healthcare. Treatment escalation planning is a contingency for medical intervention in the event of acute deterioration in hospital. Treatment escalation planning guidelines in the United Kingdom reference shared decision-making but it is not clear to what extent this is feasible.
aimTo understand how shared decision-making takes place during conversations about treatment escalation planning between clinicians and patients in the acute medical setting for older patients with mental capacity to participate in decisions about treatment escalation plans.
methodsThis was a focussed ethnography following a constructivist approach, conducted by a single researcher who is a medical doctor and qualitative researcher with input from a wider research team. Fieldwork took place April-July 2024 in an urban teaching hospital emergency department and acute medical unit. Data was collected as fieldnotes via participant observation, ad-hoc unstructured interviews, documentary analysis and case study analysis. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted according to Braun and Clarke.
resultsThere were five themes, which, collectively, illustrated and explained challenges for shared decision-making with older patients in treatment escalation planning in the acute medical setting: ‘A cog in the hospital machine’, ‘One of many good decisions’, ‘A reluctant conversation’, ‘Gatekeeping the decision’, and ‘Unconstructive conversations’.
conclusionMedical rather than shared decision-making was an inevitability in this context due to a complex set of interlinking factors, whilst patients assumed autonomy over their treatment escalation plan. This study questions the prevailing discourse that shared decision-making is always an optimal and achievable approach. Strategies to enhance shared decision-making in treatment escalation plans might include public education and encouraging clinicians and healthcare organisations to review treatment escalation plan decision-making practice. However, deliberation is required at policy level to determine expectations for different stakeholders’ authority over treatment escalation plans.
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.