↓ Skip to main content

The value of uncertainty in critical illness? An ethnographic study of patterns and conflicts in care and decision-making trajectories

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 1,496)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
The value of uncertainty in critical illness? An ethnographic study of patterns and conflicts in care and decision-making trajectories
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0177-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. J. Higginson, C. Rumble, C. Shipman, J. Koffman, K. E. Sleeman, M. Morgan, P. Hopkins, J. Noble, W. Bernal, S. Leonard, O. Dampier, W. Prentice, R. Burman, M. Costantini

Abstract

With increasingly intensive treatments and population ageing, more people face complex treatment and care decisions. We explored patterns of the decision-making processes during critical care, and sources of conflict and resolution. Ethnographic study in two Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in an inner city hospital comprising: non-participant observation of general care and decisions, followed by case studies where treatment limitation decisions, comfort care and/or end of life discussions were occurring. These involved: semi-structured interviews with consenting families, where possible, patients; direct observations of care; and review of medical records. Initial non-participant observation included daytime, evenings, nights and weekends. The cases were 16 patients with varied diagnoses, aged 19-87 years; 19 family members were interviewed, aged 30-73 years. Cases were observed for <1 to 156 days (median 22), depending on length of ICU admission. Decisions were made serially over the whole trajectory, usually several days or weeks. We identified four trajectories with distinct patterns: curative care from admission; oscillating curative and comfort care; shift to comfort care; comfort care from admission. Some families considered decision-making a negative concept and preferred uncertainty. Conflict occurred most commonly in the trajectories with oscillating curative and comfort care. Conflict also occurred inside clinical teams. Families were most often involved in decision-making regarding care outcomes and seemed to find it easier when patients switched definitively from curative to comfort care. We found eight categories of decision-making; three related to the care outcomes (aim, place, response to needs) and five to the care processes (resuscitation, decision support, medications/fluids, monitoring/interventions, other specialty involvement). Decision-making in critical illness involves a web of discussions regarding the potential outcomes and processes of care, across the whole disease trajectory. When measures oscillate between curative and comfort there is greatest conflict. This suggests a need to support early communication, especially around values and preferred care outcomes, from which other decisions follow, including DNAR. Offering further support, possibly with expert palliative care, communication, and discussion of 'trial of treatment' may be beneficial at this time, rather than waiting until the 'end of life'.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 13%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 39 29%
Unknown 32 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 41 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 24 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,145,483
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#12
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,907
of 400,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 400,364 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.