Download PDFPDF
Improving the use of treatment escalation plans: a quality-improvement study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Choice of words is crucial in effective communication
    • Claud Regnard, Honorary Consultant in Palliative Care Medicine St. Oswald’s Hospice, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE3 1EE

    Improving communication in decision-making is a worthy goal and the choice of words is crucial. Sayma and colleagues (1) have not considered the implications of some of their choices.

    Firstly, throughout the article they have used the word ‘advanced’ when describing decisions and care plans. This is a common misspelling but such issues are not superior formats but are care plans and decisions made in advance. Secondly, the authors mention ‘ceilings of care’ but do not explain that there are no ethical or legal permissions that allow care to be limited. This term is often misused when what is meant is a limit to treatment options. Finally the use of ‘escalation’ in care plans has been shown to be threatening to patients.(2) The term is too often used by clinicians without considering how this might be considered by patients.

    None of this should not detract from the value of the information provided during the study, but perhaps the authors will think carefully in future about their choice of words.

    Claud Regnard

    1. Sayma M et al. Improving the use of treatment escalation plans: a quality improvement study. Postgrad Med J, 2018; doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2018-135699.
    2. Fritz Z, Fudd JP. Development of the Universal Form of Treatment Options (UFTO) as an alternative to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders: a cross disciplinary approach. J Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2014; 21: 109-117.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.