Cargando…
Managing patient preferences and clinical responses in acute pathophysiological deterioration: What do clinicians think treatment escalation plans do?
Treatment Escalation Plans (TEPs) are paper and electronic components of patients' clinical record that are intended to encourage patients and caregivers to contribute in advance to decisions about treatment escalation and de-escalation at times of loss of capacity. There is now a voluminous li...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Pergamon
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32599414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113143 |
Sumario: | Treatment Escalation Plans (TEPs) are paper and electronic components of patients' clinical record that are intended to encourage patients and caregivers to contribute in advance to decisions about treatment escalation and de-escalation at times of loss of capacity. There is now a voluminous literature on patient decision-making, but in this qualitative study of British clinicians preparing to implement a new TEP, we focus on the ways that they understood it as much more than a device to promote patient awareness of the potential for pathophysiological deterioration and to elicit their preferences about care. Working through the lens of Callon's notion of agencements, and elements of May and Finch's Normalisation Process Theory, we show how clinicians saw the TEP as an organising device that enabled translation work to elicit individual preferences and so mitigate risks associated with decision-making under stress; and transportation work to make possible procedures that would transport agreed patterns of collective action around organisations and across their boundaries and to mitigate risks that resulted from relational and informational fragmentation. The TEP promoted these shifts by making possible the restructuring of negotiated obligations between patients, caregivers, and professionals, and by restructuring practice governance through promoting rules and resources that would form expectations of professional behaviour and organisational activity. |
---|