↓ Skip to main content

Clinical decision making in the recognition of dying: a qualitative interview study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical decision making in the recognition of dying: a qualitative interview study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0179-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Taylor, Dawn Dowding, Miriam Johnson

Abstract

Recognising dying is an essential clinical skill for general and palliative care professionals alike. Despite the high importance, both identification and good clinical care of the dying patient remains extremely difficult and often controversial in clinical practice. This study aimed to answer the question: "What factors influence medical and nursing staff when recognising dying in end-stage cancer and heart failure patients?" This study used a descriptive approach to decision-making theory. Participants were purposively sampled for profession (doctor or nurse), specialty (cardiology or oncology) and grade (senior vs junior). Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with NHS medical and nursing staff in an NHS Trust which contained cancer and cardiology tertiary referral centres. An interview schedule was designed, based on decision-making literature. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysed using thematic framework. Data were managed with Atlas.ti. Saturation was achieved with 19 participants (7 seniors; 8 intermediate level staff; 4 juniors). There were 11 oncologists (6 doctors, 5 nurses) and 8 cardiologists (3 doctors, 5 nurses). Six themes were generated: information used; decision processes; modifying factors; implementation; reflecting on decisions and related decisions. The decision process described was time-dependent, ongoing and iterative, and relies heavily on intuition. This study supports the need to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of expertise and intuition as part of the decision process, and of placing the recognition of dying in a time-dependent context. Clinicians should also be prepared to accept and convey the uncertainty surrounding these decisions, both in practice and in communication with patients and carers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 37 22%
Unknown 47 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 21%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 51 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,680,890
of 24,529,782 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#136
of 1,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,755
of 427,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,529,782 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.