The impact of language on the interpretation of resuscitation clinical care plans by doctors. A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Resuscitation clinical care plans (resuscitation plans) are gradually replacing 'Not for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' orders in the hospital setting. The 7-Step Pathway Resuscitation Plan and Alert form (7-Step form) is one example of a resuscitation plan. Treatment recommendations in resuscitation plans currently lack standardised language, creating potential for misinterpretation and patient harm. AIMS: To explore how terminology used in resuscitation plans is interpreted and applied by clinicians.
METHOD: A mixed methods study surveyed 50 general medical doctors, who were required to interpret and apply a 7-Step form in three case vignettes and define seven key terms. Statistical analysis on multiple choice and thematic analysis on free-text responses was performed.
RESULTS: Terminology was inconsistently interpreted and inconsistently applied, resulting in clinically significant differences in treatment choices. Three key themes influenced the application of a resuscitation plan: in-depth discussion, precise documentation and personal experience of the bedside deciding doctor. DISCUSSION: This study highlights persistent communication deficiencies in resuscitation plan documentation and how this may adversely affect patient care; findings unlikely to be unique to Australia or South Australia.
CONCLUSION: Removing ambiguity by standardising and defining the terminology in resuscitation plans will improve bedside decision-making, while also supporting the rights of the patient to receive appropriate and desired care.

Introduction

Clear documentation of medical treatment goals on a dedicated form helps patients receive appropriate and desired care, particularly in the setting of unexpected deterioration. Despite its recognised importance, there is no internationally accepted title for this type of documentation; terms in use include goals of care plan, resuscitation clinical care plan (resuscitation plan), and emergency treatment plan [1-3]. For the purposes of this study, we define a resuscitation plan as a document written by a doctor responsible for a patient’s care which includes a directive regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but also contains recommendations and/or limitations about other interventions, such as intubation or use of life-prolonging antibiotics. Documentation should record the goals of care following a discussion with the patient or substitute decision-maker (SDM) about the treatment preferences, informed by the doctor’s medical assessment of likely treatment outcomes [1,2].

In 2014, the 7-Step Pathway Resuscitation Plan and Alert form (7-Step form) (S1 Fig) was introduced as an integral part of implementing the Advance Care Directives Act 2013 (SA) to provide a clinical tool to reinforce the principle of self-determination; the individual’s right to refuse treatment including CPR. This resuscitation plan is now used in all six South Australian urban public referral hospitals and is available in smaller rural hospitals and clinics staffed by primary care providers, it is also recognised as a treatment guide by ambulance officers [3]. The form and underlying Resuscitation Planning Policy Framework were developed to address previously identified inadequacies in the process of resuscitation decisions and documentation, with a renewed emphasis on transparent patient-doctor discussion that would result in desired and appropriate medical care, while protecting the right to withhold futile interventions.

The completed form represents the final step in a process of creating a care plan in conjunction with the patient; a stepwise approach that is locally known as the 7-Step Pathway. In accordance with current evidence base, the 7-Step Pathway includes medical assessment, open consultation with the patient about their treatment goals, and a transparent discussion of appropriate treatment within the framework of known co-morbidity and quality of life [3,4]. The plan should be communicated to the primary care provider on hospital discharge, and a carbon-copy provided to the patient. While the 7-Step form is not legally binding in isolation, it may be used to reflect previously documented binding treatment refusals that a patient has recorded on an Advance Care Directive.

In line with this study’s definition, international examples of resuscitation plans also contain a CPR directive, a description of treatment limitations or recommendations, and a record of patient/SDM involvement. Key differences between examples include the relative focus on free text documentation vs standardised tick box care options, whether the document is used for a specified length of time or indefinitely (as is the case with the 7-Step form), and the involvement of senior staff in creating a plan [1,5,6].

Previous analysis has shown that when compared to ad hoc case-note documentation, the 7-Step form improved frequency of resuscitation documentation, but did not reduce the use of undefined and ambiguous terminology [4]. In addition to the lack of a common title, international resuscitation plans include ambiguous or undefined terms including ‘ward care’, ‘supportive care’ and ‘limited intervention’ [Support Care Cancer. 2013 ">7-9]. The lack of standardised language may create a risk of inappropriate patient care through misinterpretation.

This study investigates whether terminology used in a resuscitation plan is both consistently interpreted and consistently applied by a clinician at the bedside. Secondary aims were to determine whether clinicians found a standardised resuscitation plan useful, and to explore the other factors which influence how they applied a resuscitation plan.

Method

A mixed methods approach was designed to maximise insight into resuscitation plan interpretation. A closed internet survey, accessed via emailed link, was sent to all one hundred doctors who had worked in general medicine at a single centre between February-August 2017. The survey was conducted between August and October 2017. The email and link stated the purpose, duration and nature of the survey and that completion of the survey was taken for consent, in accordance with ethics approval (Royal Adelaide Hospital: HREC/17/RAH/375). Participation was anonymous, voluntary and no incentive was provided. Survey questions were pilot tested with the co-authors (MB, CHT) and physician colleagues, and refined iteratively. Questions were not randomised. The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys was used as a reporting guide for this study [10].

In the first section of the survey, three case vignettes drawn from real life examples were described (S1 Text). Having read the resuscitation plan, participants selected all interventions they deemed appropriate from a list of multiple-choice options. In the second section, participants defined seven terms used in the free-text section of the 7-Step form; identified from previous research [4]. The final section was a Likert Scale response to the statement ‘the 7-Step Pathway aids decision-making about appropriate goals of care, not just CPR’, with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Participants could expand on all responses with free-text.

The Fisher-exact test was used to compare the treatment choices of senior and junior doctors and differences were highlighted where statistical significance was reached (p = 0.05). In each case vignette, responses were also ranked from most consistently chosen to least consistently chosen with 100% or 0% representing maximum agreement between respondents, and 50% representing maximum disagreement. The ranked responses were used to calculate a standard deviation that quantified the relative level of agreement between respondents’ answers in each case. Standard deviations of the three case vignettes were compared using Lehmans’ variance ratio to determine statistical significance (p = 0.05).

Thematic analysis was performed on the free-text and semi-structured responses using the established methodology of Braun and Clark [11]. Each respondent was assigned a unique identifier including a number and a letter (C = Consultant, R = Registrar, M = Resident Medical Officer, I = Intern). Following data familiarisation, preliminary concepts from each participant’s responses were identified and coded inductively. Themes and subthemes were sought until all data was reviewed or saturation reached. The second author who is a local expert with experience in both the subject matter and qualitative research independently reviewed the data to ensure all themes were adequately captured and no themes or divergent views were missed. Links between free-text responses and multiple-choice treatment selections were sought and new themes developed or incorporated into existing themes where appropriate.

Results

Characteristics of participants

Fifty responses from the one hundred invited participants were obtained (50%), predominantly from interns and residents (Table 1). This is consistent with the General Medicine ward structure where the junior staff rotate every three months and therefore total numbers are larger. 31/50 (62%) participants had completed education about the 7-Step form, chiefly via attendance at in-hospital presentations. There was no statistical difference in the prevalence of those who received education across the levels of seniority.

Table 1

Characteristics of participants.

	Intern	Resident	Registrar	Consultant	TOTAL
Participants (% of invitees)	23 (48)	17 (52)	3 (38)	7 (37)	50 (50)
Had received education (%)	13/23 (57)	11/17 (65)	2/3 (67)	5/7 (71)	31/50 (62)
Agreeda (%)	20/23 (87)	13/17(76)	2/3 (67)	4/7 (57)	39/50 (78)

a These doctors agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘The 7-Step Pathway aids decision-making about appropriate goals of care, not just CPR’

Overall, 39/50 (78%) of doctors agreed or strongly agreed that the 7-Step form aids decision-making about appropriate goals of care, not just CPR. There was no association between education received and the clinicians’ opinion of its usefulness (p = 0.9). 87% of interns agreed the 7-Step form is a useful decision aid, compared to 57% of consultants. The difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.08).

Case vignette interpretation

The abridged case vignettes are outlined in Table 2, and the treatment choices selected in response to each case vignette shown in Fig 1A, 1B and 1C.

Table 2

Abridged case vignettes (See S1 Text for unabridged case vignettes).

Case #1-Comfort Care: A dyspnoeic patient with End-Stage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease has deteriorated despite maximum therapy. The 7-Step form tick-box section states ‘Not for any Treatment Aimed at Prolonging Life’. The free-text states ‘Comfort care’.

Case #2 -No Life Prolonging Treatment: A patient with end-stage dementia presents with likely urosepsis. The patient’s Advance Care Directive states ‘If my dementia gets worse and I can no longer make my own decisions, I do not want any treatment to sustain life.’ The 7-Step form tick-box section states ‘Not for any Treatment Aimed at Prolonging Life/Not for MER (Medical Emergency Response) calls’. The free-text is blank.

Case #3- Ward Measures: A patient is reviewed at a MER call for profound drowsiness, hypotension and heart rate 30bpm. She has a history of atrial fibrillation on metoprolol 50mg twice daily, and quiescent metastatic breast cancer. A 7-Step form was previously completed with her husband. The tick-box section states ‘Not For CPR/invasive ventilation/intensive care treatment or admission’. The free-text states ‘Active ward measures’.

Fig 1

Percentage of respondents who agreed with each treatment option in each case vignette.

(A) Case #1- Comfort care: +Where a treatment was selected by <50%, the inverse proportion has been displayed in order to demonstrate degree of concordance between doctors i.e. 6% selected antibiotics so 94% selected (No) antibiotics. ^Non-rebreather. *Intravenous. (B) Case #2- No life prolonging treatment: +As in (A), the inverse proportion has been graphically displayed. ^Microscopy, sensitivities and culture. *In-dwelling urinary catheter. ~Computerised Tomography scan (C) Case #3- Ward measures: +As in (A), the inverse proportion has been graphically displayed. ^Coronary Care Unit.

The treatment choices selected in response to each case vignette are shown in Fig 1A, 1B and 1C. In Case #1-Comfort Care, 96% of respondents selected subcutaneous morphine and did not select intravenous fluid bolus, chest X-ray or arterial blood gas. Consultants were more likely than junior doctors to select intravenous antibiotics, chest x-ray and arterial blood gas (p = 0.04 in all three examples). Supplemental oxygen using nasal specs and non-rebreather were selected by 72% and 18% respectively. It was unclear from free-text responses if oxygen was given for symptomatic relief or to extend life.

In Case#2-No Life Prolonging Treatment, morphine and midazolam were selected by 82% and 85% of responders respectively. Potentially life-prolonging options were selected by 26% of respondents, including intravenous fluid (26%), intravenous antibiotics (24%) and oral antibiotics (14%). 42% of consultants prescribed intravenous antibiotics versus 23% of junior staff, though the difference was not statistically significance (p = 0.3).

In Case#3-Ward Measures, more than 90% of respondents selected the options of intravenous fluid bolus, electrolyte replacement and cardiology consult. Intravenous atropine, coronary care unit admission and external cardiac pacing were selected by 78%, 66% and 50% of respondents respectively. Consultants were more likely to give isoprenaline and external pacing than junior doctors (p = 0.03).

The quantified level of agreement between clinicians about appropriate treatment was greatest in Case#1, then Case #2, then Case #3 with standard deviations of 10.8, 11.7 and 19.3 respectively. The difference in level of agreement between Case #1 and Case #3 was statistically significant (p<0.001), suggesting that ‘comfort care’ results in a more consistent approach to management than ‘active ward measures’.

Definitions of key terms in resuscitation plans

Forty-eight doctors completed this section. 29 (60%) participants used one repeated definition for all five ‘ward-’ terms or wrote ‘as above’, indicating they deemed these terms synonymous. For respondents who gave multiple definitions, the intent of treatment and the perceived appropriate limit of care varied significantly, as seen in Table 3. ‘Active measures’ and ‘full ward measures’ were associated with the provision of more aggressive treatments, including CPR for 20% of respondents.

Table 3

Selected definitions of key terms.

Key term to define	Selected definitions
Full ward measures	“Everything possible, including resuscitation” (M4)“Everything except ICU/CPR/intubation” (M6)
Active ward measures	“I find this unclear-unsure if it would include escalation to ICU” (M2)
Ward based measures	“An intervention which can be safely performed on a ward; not necessarily to prolong life” (I21)
Ward based management	“Treatment outside of ICU, aim to cure/prolong life. May include a procedure depending on the situation.” (C2)
Ward based care	“Measures which can be given on a ward but which do not actively pursue a new diagnosis” (I10)
Comfort Care	“Aimed at allowing the patient to die with dignity with relief from symptoms such as pain, dyspnoea, agitation.” (I9)
Palliative Approach	“This is a very ambiguous term, palliative approach can mean ensuring best quality of life…thus may also involve some active management” (C4)“Comfort care for patient certain to die” (C5)

For ‘comfort care’ and ‘palliative approach’, goals of care were reflected in language like ‘symptomatic relief’, ‘dying’ and ‘alleviate distress’, with 31/47 (65%) of respondents using a single definition for both terms. In responses where the terms were separately defined, the chronology between ‘palliative approach’, ‘comfort care’ and imminent death varied. Opinions varied about whether artificial hydration, antibiotics and chemotherapy were part of a ‘palliative approach’, especially in patients presenting with an illness other than their underlying life-limiting condition. Of the seven terms, ‘comfort care’ was the term where intent of care was the most concordant.

Thematic analysis

Analysis of free-text responses revealed three key themes that influenced how a resuscitation plan is interpreted and applied. These were ‘the discussion’, ‘the documentation’ and ‘the deciding doctor’.

The theme ‘the discussion’ pertains to the communication between the documenting clinician and patient/SDM prior to completion of a resuscitation plan. A robust and clearly documented discussion was valued by respondents, and considered pivotal to implementing the clinical care plan. When the 7-Step form was incomplete or there was inadequate supporting documentation describing the discussion, respondents acknowledged misinterpretation was possible.

In Case#3-Ward Measures, participants perceived that inadequate discussion had occurred and expressed reduced confidence in the documented resuscitation plan. They indicated a reduced willingness to make clinical decisions without additional information. Participants suggested that when the initial discussion was not sufficiently detailed, workload and patient care were both adversely affected. A pre-emptive or early discussion was preferred to impromptu discussion prompted by patient deterioration.

“I have been [in] situations before where 7-Steps have been misinterpreted as that relevant box has not been discussed with the patient.” (I6)

“Every day multiple METs occur where someone in T2RF [Type 2 Respiratory Failure] is "Not for CPR/ICU/[intubation]” but there is no mention of NIV [Non-invasive ventilation] … resulting in multiple phone calls to determine the true ceiling of care” (M15)

The theme, ‘the documentation’, encompasses the available written information at the bedside in both the 7-Step form and/or case notes. The change to a standardised resuscitation plan was viewed positively because of ease of locating and increased clarity, though not all respondents felt it had changed their practice.

The form was reported to clearly indicate if a patient should not receive CPR, and when the focus was strictly palliative. However, respondents were critical of how the free-text section was used; ill-defined or general statements were reportedly common and rarely added clarification to treatment goals. In particular, the phrase ‘ward measures’ was perceived as a source of frustration and ambiguity. Since treatments available in each ward vary, it was unclear to the respondents what treatments were actually appropriate. The addition of other specific treatments (e.g. non-invasive ventilation) to the tick-box section was suggested to clarify this uncertainty.

“The 7-step pathway has not changed how I document my resuscitation plans or how I have the discussion with patients and families. It has provided a common place to write the resuscitation orders in the case notes.” (R2)

“There should be also a move to further specify treatments that are appropriate/inappropriate as many 7-steps end up with very vague and generalised statements.” (M14)

"Ward based measures" is okay, but fails to adequately identify the ceiling limit of care. Lots of therapies can take place on the wards, especially on "specialty wards." (M15)

The theme, ‘the deciding doctor’, acknowledges the bedside clinician as an individual, whose treatment decisions are affected by personal values and experience. Interns were unlikely to question the resuscitation plan’s instructions and valued specific limitations that could be readily followed. For more senior doctors, there were conflicting views of the resuscitation plan’s role in determining care, ranging from a useful tool to a guideline that stood in the way of individualised patient assessment.

The deciding doctors’ treatment choices were therefore impacted by the value they placed on the resuscitation plan and its specified treatment limitations, with some doctors willing to overrule the plan (or at least re-open the discussion). This concept was evident in the free text responses and the treatment selections in case vignettes.

“[The] decision has to be made on individual circumstances on the day, protocols can be a help or a distraction.” (C5)

“As with anything, the more information provided by the person who is writing the 7-step, the more useful it is to determine the appropriate goals of care.” (I21)

Re Case #3: “In this case I'd probably ignore the 7-steps if what was discussed wasn't documented, and I'd call the patients (sic) consultant too.” (M8)

Discussion

Despite resuscitation plans being regarded as a useful tool by 78% of respondents, this study shows that much of the terminology used in the 7-Step form is inconsistently interpreted and inconsistently applied by doctors, resulting in clinically significant differences in treatment choices.

Responses to all of the case vignettes showed treatment inconsistencies, with Case#1-Comfort care showing greatest agreement about appropriate management. Despite the highest level of agreement and a narrow range of definitions for ‘comfort care’, there was still inconsistent provision of oxygen and fluids by respondents in the case vignette. This finding is similar to a USA study where 176 surveyed clinicians had disparate opinions about whether ‘comfort measures only’ included intravenous antibiotics, supplemental oxygen or emergency response calls [12].

In Case #2-No Life Prolonging Treatment, 24% of respondents prescribed potentially life-saving intravenous antibiotics for a septic patient whose binding Advance Care Directive stated ‘No treatment to sustain life’. Prescribing antibiotics is at best a problematic misinterpretation, making clear the need for standardised definitions. It could also be a paternalistic disregard for a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment. This is not an isolated occurrence; one USA study found 2–13% of surveyed doctors would provide CPR for patients with a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order [13].

In Case #3-Ward measures, uncertainty was greatest about whether sub-specialty emergency interventions like isoprenaline infusion and external pacing were appropriate. Uncertainty was also evident in the range of definitions given for each of the five ‘ward-’ terms: while 60% of respondents would assume the same goals of care regardless of whether ‘full ward measures’ or ‘ward based care’ was documented, the remaining 40% of doctors thought each term reflected a different treatment approach, including whether they should aim to prolong life.

Thematic analysis revealed that the implementation of a resuscitation plan is confounded by factors other than undefined language. Confidence in a resuscitation plan was greatest when there was a robust and clearly documented discussion with adequately detailed treatment limitations. Even when adequately detailed, the bedside deciding doctor may re-discuss, ignore, or flexibly interpret a resuscitation plan they disagreed with. Interns, who are inexperienced in clinical decision-making and are used to following senior orders, were also more likely to both closely follow a resuscitation plan and consider it a useful decision-making tool. This may in part explain the statistical differences in treatment approaches seen in the case vignettes. International studies have similarly shown that resuscitation plans are relied upon by after-hours junior doctors to accurately convey the home team’s treatment recommendations, and improve speed of decision-making [14,15]. Many international resuscitation plans require a secondary signature from a senior officer, which may be one practical solution to improve cohesion in the approaches of junior and senior staff.

While not the focus of this study, the results suggest that the perceived purpose of a resuscitation plan varies between doctors: is it predominantly a handover tool, or a document to protect patients from intervention they do not want? These objectives should ideally align, but translation of a patient’s wishes into documented treatment limitations is an imprecise process. Misinterpreting a resuscitation plan based on an Advance Care Directive, or relying on poor quality documentation, does not simply represent a failed medical handover however. It represents a loss of the patient’s voice in the decision-making process. The underlying aim of resuscitation planning policy, to champion the patient’s voice, has arguably not been achieved [16].

An ideal resuscitation plan therefore needs to strike a balance between patient advocacy, a clear medical handover, and the unpredictable nature of future hospital admissions. While junior doctors in this study were in favour of increased standardised choices such as ‘Not for non-invasive ventilation’, a list of this nature will inevitably be incomplete and maintains a focus on the treatment that will be withheld. Contemporary alternatives include the model exemplified in the USA-based POLST (physician’s orders for life sustaining treatment) form, where patients are divided into three broad treatment approaches; full, selective and comfort-focussed [17]. The increased clarity and ease of use in this three-tiered care model potentially comes at the expense of a nuanced and individualised patient-centred approach. The ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) model in United Kingdom provides ample scope for individualisation and patient involvement in the form of visual scales balancing curative and symptom-based care [5]. This form requires the doctor to accurately document treatment limitations in free-text format however, thereby risking the use of undefined or ambiguous terminology that proved so problematic in this study.

This study is limited to a single-centre general medical unit with 50% response rate which may limit generalisability of findings. A strength of the selected cohort is that this general medical unit completes resuscitation plan forms on 63% of patients over 70 years, and has been using the 7-Step form in its current format since 2014. Sampling from this cohort therefore, removes confounding factors such as form variability or human error due to unfamiliarity with the form. The online format of the survey may have resulted in less comprehensive responses than verbal interviews.

In addition to on-site education at the time of its launch at each new site, training about the 7-Step Pathway is available through online educational modules. The adequacy of these interventions to support the completion and interpretation of the form is a confounding factor that has not been addressed in this study. The capacity for a renewed education strategy and dedicated resources to improve the process, as opposed to changing the form, remains an area for future research.

Conclusion

Terminology in resuscitation plans is neither consistently interpreted nor consistently applied, which affects bedside treatment decisions. The deciding doctor is also influenced by personal experience, seniority, and the perceived quality of discussions with the patient/SDM. Ambiguous language in resuscitation plans undermines a key tenet of resuscitation documentation, to record a patient’s preferences in a manner that will be accurately interpreted and faithfully upheld. Moving towards universally shared and defined terminology in resuscitation plans will improve medical handover, increase physician confidence in the value of the documentation and ultimately, support delivery of appropriate and desired care for the patient.

Copy of 7 step pathway resuscitation plan and alert form.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Unabridged case vignettes.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-20806

De-coding the language; how clinicians interpret resuscitation clinical care plans. A mixed methods study

PLOS ONE

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 20 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrew Carl Miller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal).

If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please ensure your work adheres to the following guideline and provide citation: Eysenbach, G. (2004). Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e‐surveys (cherries). Journal of medical Internet research, 6(3)e34 doi:10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e34/

Describe the informed consent process. Where were the participants told the length of time of the survey, which data were stored and where and for how long, who the investigator was, and the purpose of the study?

If any personal information was collected or stored, describe what mechanisms were used to protect unauthorized access.

State how the survey was developed, including whether the usability and technical functionality of the electronic questionnaire had been tested before fielding the questionnaire.

Please verify that this was a “closed survey”: An “open survey” is a survey open for each visitor of a site, while a closed survey is only open to a sample which the investigator knows (password-protected survey).

In “closed” (non-open) surveys, users need to login first and it is easier to prevent duplicate entries from the same user. Describe how this was done. For example, was the survey never displayed a second time once the user had filled it in, or was the username stored together with the survey results and later eliminated? If the latter, which entries were kept for analysis (eg, the first entry or the most recent)?

How/where was the survey announced or advertised? Some examples are offline media (newspapers), or online (mailing lists – If yes, which ones?) or banner ads (Where were these banner ads posted and what did they look like?). It is important to know the wording of the announcement as it will heavily influence who chooses to participate. Ideally the survey announcement should be published as an appendix.

For the e-mail survey, were the responses entered manually into a database, or was there an automatic method for capturing responses?

Were any incentives offered (eg, monetary, prizes, or non-monetary incentives such as an offer to provide the survey results)?

Randomization of items: To prevent biases items can be randomized or alternated.

Was adaptive questioning used? With adaptive questioning (certain items, or only conditionally displayed based on responses to other items) to reduce the number and complexity of the questions.

What was the number of questionnaire items per page? The number of items is an important factor for the completion rate.

Over how many pages was the questionnaire distributed? The number of items is an important factor for the completion rate.

It is technically possible to do consistency or completeness checks before the questionnaire is submitted. Was this done, and if “yes”, how (usually JAVAScript)? An alternative is to check for completeness after the questionnaire has been submitted (and highlight mandatory items). If this has been done, it should be reported. All items should provide a non-response option such as “not applicable” or “rather not say”, and selection of one response option should be enforced.

State whether respondents were able to review and change their answers (eg, through a Back button or a Review step which displays a summary of the responses and asks respondents if they are correct).

How did you determined a unique visitor. There are different techniques available, based on IP addresses or cookies or both.

-- Cookies: If so, mention the page on which the cookie was set and read, and how long the cookie was valid. Were duplicate entries avoided by preventing users access to the survey twice; or were duplicate database entries having the same user ID eliminated before analysis? In the latter case, which entries were kept for analysis (eg, the first entry or the most recent)?

-- IP Address: Indicate whether the IP address of the client computer was used to identify potential duplicate entries from the same user. If so, mention the period of time for which no two entries from the same IP address were allowed (eg, 24 hours). Were duplicate entries avoided by preventing users with the same IP address access to the survey twice; or were duplicate database entries having the same IP address within a given period of time eliminated before analysis? If the latter, which entries were kept for analysis (eg, the first entry or the most recent)?

Was log file analysis used?: Indicate whether other techniques to analyze the log file for identification of multiple entries were used. If so, please describe.

Provide view rate (Ratio unique site visitors/unique survey visitors) if possible: Requires counting unique site visitors (not page views!) divided by the number of unique visitors of the first page of the survey. It is not unusual to have view rates of less than 0.1 % if the survey is voluntary.

Provide participation rate (Ratio unique survey page visitors/agreed to participate) if possible: Count the unique number of visitors who visit the first page of the survey (or the informed consent page, if present) divided by the number of people who filled in the first survey page (or agreed to participate). This can also be called “recruitment” rate.

Provide completion rate (Ratio agreed to participate/finished survey) if possible: The number of people agreeing to participate (or submitting the first survey page) divided by the number of people submitting the last questionnaire page. This is only relevant if there is a separate “informed consent” page or if the survey goes over several pages. This is a measure for attrition. Note that “completion” can involve leaving questionnaire items blank. This is not a measure for how completely questionnaires were filled in. (If you need a measure for this, use the word “completeness rate”.)

Were only completed questionnaires analyzed? Were questionnaires which terminated early (where, for example, users did not go through all questionnaire pages) also analyzed?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study that I believe would be of interest to the international community involved in developing and implementing the use of emergency care and treatment plans.

Whilst the paper has been presented well, I believe that some revision would improve it and increase its value to readers.

I feel that the title of the paper (in particular the use of the word ‘de-coding’) does not reflect the study’s findings and paper’s content accurately in a way that will help readers to find it and know what it is about. The main message from the findings of this study is that use of ambiguous language in resuscitation plans – unsurprisingly – results in different interpretation among doctors and in different decisions about choices of emergency treatments. I suggest that the title is amended to reflect this clearly.

The text states that 3 of the 4 authors ‘contributed equally to this work’. The nature and extent of their equal contributions are not stated. I suggest that this be corrected.

There is a degree of irony in this paper that addresses ambiguity and misinterpretation of terminology within a document that itself has the ambiguous name ‘resuscitation plan’. Some people use or interpret ‘resuscitation’ as referring to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, whereas others will use terminology such as ‘fluid resuscitation’ and some consider other emergency treatments as being part of ‘resuscitation’. The study identifies that doctors have different perceptions of the purpose and value of a ‘resuscitation plan’. The paper could usefully discuss whether that might be resolved, at least in part, by using a different, more specific name for the plan and/or a clear statement on the form of its purpose.

A weakness of this study, which should be acknowledged in the text, is that it has asked doctors to interpret (in the context of case vignettes) free-text phrases used on resuscitation plans from 2017 that were examined in a previous study. That previous study concluded that these phrases were ‘open to broad, variable interpretation’ and that ‘…ongoing education is integral to changing practice’. The present study has – unsurprisingly – validated the first of these conclusions, and – disappointingly – the current paper fails to acknowledge the crucial role of education (including audit, appraisal and feedback) in persuading doctors to record clear recommendations and stop using ambiguous phrases. If these phrases are in widespread use, that appears to indicate failure of adequate staff education in the completion of the 7-step form.

In more than one place, the text states ‘Terminology was neither consistently interpreted nor applied…’. I think that the authors intended to state that terminology was neither interpreted consistently nor applied consistently, not that the ‘terminology’ was not applied.

The paper refers to ‘not for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation orders’ but does not make clear the legal status of such documents in Australia. In the UK, such documents are not legally binding ‘orders’ but are recommendations to guide those dealing with a sudden emergency to make the best possible decisions about the emergency care and treatment of the person, when the person has lost capacity to make choices about their care and treatment. The legal status of similar documents varies from country to country, so I think – especially in an international journal – that this should be acknowledged and discussed in this paper.

The paper states that the 7-step form is being used in all ‘public tertiary hospitals’ in South Australia. This terminology is potentially ambiguous for an international readership, so it would be helpful for the text to define the type, size and number of hospitals covered by this term.

It would be helpful and of great interest also to understand what arrangements are in place to communicate recommendations for the emergency care and treatment of patients who have not been admitted to this type of hospital, or patients transferred or discharged from a tertiary hospital. For the provision of person-centred care, I think there should be a robust process to transfer an up-to-date and relevant 7-step form with the patient or to generate current recommendations for emergency care and treatment on a different document. Whichever document is used outside the tertiary hospitals must be widely used, recognised and accepted across a range of other care settings, by a broad range of health and care professionals. Clearly, the ambiguous terminology used in this study to explore interpretation by hospital doctors would be likely to be even more ambiguous to health and care professionals if used on a form held by a patient at home or in various other care settings.

The paper implies in a single sentence that the 7-step form is very similar to 'international counterparts'. This is not strictly true. There are substantial differences, and it would be appropriate to identify these in the text and to consider them in subsequent discussion of possible options for improving the design of the 7-step form to overcome the problems identified in this study.

There is published evidence that using a discussion process and form that focus on and record treatments that would be wanted and should be considered to help to achieve the person’s goals of care, not primarily on treatment to be withheld, are preferred by both patients and by healthcare professionals. The ‘7-step form’ appears to focus more on withholding treatment rather than on giving realistic care and treatment to meet the person’s goals of care. As such, it does not appear truly person-centred or evidence-based.

In the published report of their previous study (reference 4) the authors concluded that the current Alert Form (‘7-step form’) could be improved. The tick-box list in section 4 of the form focuses firstly on emergency treatments to be withheld, emphasised using red print. Treatments that ‘will be provided’ are relegated to a rather less prominent free-text box below. Even the wording in this box is ambiguous. This box should list treatments that would be wanted and should be considered – and provided if they are needed. I would like to see much more discussion about the substantial potential to improve the form and to try to ensure that the form is used to support good communication, good medical practice and person-centred care, rather than primarily supporting the healthcare system.

In the discussion section, the paper suggests ‘To further improve clarity for junior staff, free-text options could be replaced with standardised choices e.g. non-invasive ventilation, cardiac monitoring, artificial hydration and intravenous antibiotics’. I am concerned that this would be primarily a system-focused intervention that is not truly person-centred. There are several potential ways in which the form could be modified to make it more person-centred and less likely to lead to varying interpretation and incorrect decision making in an emergency, and I would like to see the discussion expanded to consider these other options and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Trying to create a comprehensive list of tick-box treatment options to cater for every person's individual needs seems likely to make the form unduly long and cumbersome for all, and trying to limit the number of treatment options will inevitably fail to cater for all individual needs.

I am sorry to raise so many suggestions and hope that they will be viewed in the constructive spirit intended, and used to develop this interesting paper to its full potential.

Reviewer #2: I think you did a good job with a difficult research topic. I added a couple of comments about discussing the vignette management differences seen. I thought you addressed the language ambiguity in the second part well.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr David Pitcher

Reviewer #2: Yes: Michael Ritchie

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-20806_reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

29 Oct 2019

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your considered and insightful feedback for this article, now titled "The impact of language on the interpretation of resuscitation clinical care plans by doctors. A mixed methods study."

I have responded to your specific concerns in full within the 'Response to reviewers' letter. I have copied my responses in the area below as well. Overall I found your feedback highly valuable and feel the resubmitted article is significantly strengthened from the editorial and reviewer critique. I look forward to your responses.

Yours Sincerely,

Colette Dignam

Editorial Comments:

1) Review style requirements- I have reviewed the style requirements and made changes where necessary

2) Details of patient consent. I have provided further details in both the article and the online submission format

3) Data availability: Given your concern, I have referred this issue directly to the approving ethics committee. They have advised a restriction on uploading data to a public depository due to concerns about compromising participant privacy and confidentiality given the single-centre nature of the study. Data collection preceded recent changes to the Australian Research Council guidelines on data sharing and as such, consent for public data sharing was not sought from participants. The ethics committee has advised making ‘Data available to all interested researchers upon request’ and can be contacted directly at Health.CALHNResearchethics@sa.gov.au. My contact was Jasmine Kumar.

4) Please ensure your work adheres to the following guideline (CHERRIES) and provide citation: I have reviewed the CHERRIES checklist and amended my methodology to reflect their reporting guidelines, including citation:

Reviewer Comments and Feedback

1) Title does not reflect study's findings:

I agree with this feedback. I have amended the title to: “The impact of language on the interpretation of resuscitation clinical care plans by doctors. A mixed methods study.”

2) The nature and extent of the authors equal contributions are not stated:

The online PLOS ONE submission included a page detailing the nature of contributions. Please let me know if further information is required.

3) There is a degree of irony in this paper that addresses ambiguity and misinterpretation of terminology within a document that itself has the ambiguous name ‘resuscitation plan’. ...The paper could usefully discuss whether that might be resolved, at least in part, by using a different, more specific name for the plan and/or a clear statement on the form of its purpose.

Response:

Irony aside, the lack of common nomenclature is certainly an issue, particularly when attempting a thorough literature review. I have revised the opening introductory paragraph to address this: “Clear documentation of medical treatment goals on a dedicated form helps patients receive appropriate and desired care, particularly in the setting of unexpected deterioration. Despite its recognised importance, there is no internationally accepted title for this type of documentation; terms in use include goals of care plan, resuscitation clinical care plan (resuscitation plan), and emergency treatment plan [1-3]. For the purposes of this study, we define a resuscitation plan as a document written by a doctor responsible for a patient’s care which includes a directive regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but also contains recommendations and/or limitations about other interventions, such as intubation or use of life-prolonging antibiotics. Documentation should record the goals of care following a discussion with the patient or substitute decision-maker (SDM) about the treatment preferences, informed by the doctor’s medical assessment of likely treatment outcomes [1,2].”

4) A weakness of this study, which should be acknowledged in the text, is...the current paper fails to acknowledge the crucial role of education...

Response: On a practical level, the data collection for this study began 4 months after the initial study data was collated, based on preliminary analysis of the first study’s findings. The aim was to demonstrate that undefined language IS affecting care in the first instance (which, until now, was a theoretical concern). Designing and carrying out an educational campaign in this time frame was not possible. I have acknowledged this in limitations.

“In addition to on-site education at the time of its launch at each new site, training about the 7-Step Pathway is available through online educational modules. The adequacy of these interventions to support the completion and interpretation of the form is a confounding factor that has not been addressed in this study. The capacity for a renewed education strategy and dedicated resources to improve the process, as opposed to changing the form, remains an area for future research.”

5) I think that the authors intended to state that terminology was neither interpreted consistently nor applied consistently, not that the ‘terminology’ was not applied.

Response: The wording has been changed throughout the paper to reflect this clearer suggested phrasing.

6) The paper refers to ‘not for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation orders’ but does not make clear the legal status of such documents in Australia...

Response: The introductory text has been changed to reflect the relationship between legally binding Advance Care Directives and the 7-Step Pathway:

“In 2014, the 7-Step Pathway Resuscitation Plan and Alert form (7-Step form) (S1 Fig 1) was introduced as an integral part of implementing the Advance Care Directives Act 2013 (SA) to provide a clinical tool to reinforce the principle of self-determination; the individual’s right to refuse treatment including CPR.”

“…While the 7-Step form is not legally binding in isolation, it may be used to reflect previously documented binding treatment refusals that a patient has recorded on an Advance Care Directive. “

7) The paper states that the 7-step form is being used in all ‘public tertiary hospitals’ in South Australia. This terminology is potentially ambiguous for an international readership, so it would be helpful for the text to define the type, size and number of hospitals covered by this term.

See next response

8) It would be helpful and of great interest also to understand what arrangements are in place to communicate recommendations for the emergency care and treatment of patients who have not been admitted to this type of hospital, or patients transferred or discharged from a tertiary hospital. For the provision of person-centred care, I think there should be a robust process to transfer an up-to-date and relevant 7-step form with the patient or to generate current recommendations for emergency care and treatment on a different document. Whichever document is used outside the tertiary hospitals must be widely used, recognised and accepted across a range of other care settings, by a broad range of health and care professionals. Clearly, the ambiguous terminology used in this study to explore interpretation by hospital doctors would be likely to be even more ambiguous to health and care professionals if used on a form held by a patient at home or in various other care settings.

Response: “This resuscitation plan is now used in all six South Australian urban public referral hospitals and is available in smaller rural hospitals and clinics staffed by primary care providers, it is also recognised as a treatment guide by ambulance officers [3]… The plan should be communicated to the primary care provider on hospital discharge, and a carbon-copy provided to the patient.”

9) The paper implies in a single sentence that the 7-step form is very similar to 'international counterparts'. This is not strictly true. There are substantial differences, and it would be appropriate to identify these in the text and to consider them in subsequent discussion of possible options for improving the design of the 7-step form..

Response: In addition to the Discussion, I have added the following to Introduction: “In line with this study’s definition, international examples of resuscitation plans also contain a CPR directive, a description of treatment limitations or recommendations, and a record of patient/SDM involvement. Key differences between examples include the relative focus on free text documentation vs standardised tick box care options, whether the document is used for a specified length of time or indefinitely (as is the case with the 7-Step form), and the involvement of senior staff in creating a plan [1,5,6].”

10) There is published evidence that using a discussion process and form that focus on and record treatments that would be wanted and should be considered to help to achieve the person’s goals of care, not primarily on treatment to be withheld, are preferred by both patients and by healthcare professionals. The ‘7-step form’ appears to focus more on withholding treatment rather than on giving realistic care and treatment to meet the person’s goals of care...

Response: The government-endorsed evidence-based approach that underpins form completion is perhaps under-represented in the manuscript. I have added the following to Introduction: “The form and underlying Resuscitation Planning Policy Framework were developed to address previously identified inadequacies in the process of resuscitation decisions and documentation, with a renewed emphasis on transparent patient-doctor discussion that would result in desired and appropriate medical care, while protecting the right to withhold futile interventions."

"The completed form represents the final step in a process of creating a care plan in conjunction with the patient; a stepwise approach that is locally known as the 7-Step Pathway. In accordance with current evidence base, the 7-Step Pathway includes medical assessment, open consultation with the patient about their treatment goals, and a transparent discussion of appropriate treatment within the framework of known co-morbidity and quality of life [3,4]. ”

11) In the published report of their previous study (reference 4) the authors concluded that the current Alert Form (‘7-step form’) could be improved. The tick-box list in section 4 of the form focuses firstly on emergency treatments to be withheld, emphasised using red print. Treatments that ‘will be provided’ are relegated to a rather less prominent free-text box below. Even the wording in this box is ambiguous. This box should list treatments that would be wanted and should be considered – and provided if they are needed. I would like to see much more discussion about the substantial potential to improve the form and to try to ensure that the form is used to support good communication, good medical practice and person-centred care, rather than primarily supporting the healthcare system.

Response: I have addressed this and the following comment with a further paragraph in the Discussion;

An ideal resuscitation plan therefore needs to strike a balance between patient advocacy, a clear medical handover, and the unpredictable nature of future hospital admissions. While junior doctors in this study were in favour of increased standardised choices such as ‘Not for non-invasive ventilation’, a list of this nature will inevitably be incomplete and maintains a focus on the treatment that will be withheld. Contemporary alternatives include the model exemplified in the USA-based POLST (physician’s orders for life sustaining treatment) model, where patients are divided into three broad treatment approaches; full, limited and palliative. The increased clarity and ease of use in this three-tiered care model potentially comes at the expense of a nuanced and individualised patient-centred approach. The ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) model in United Kingdom provides ample scope for individualisation and patient involvement in the form of visual scales balancing curative and symptom-based care. This form requires the doctor to accurately document treatment limitations in free-text format however, thereby risking the use of undefined or ambiguous terminology that proved so problematic in this study.

12) In the discussion section, the paper suggests ‘To further improve clarity for junior staff, free-text options could be replaced with standardised choices ...Trying to create a comprehensive list of tick-box treatment options to cater for every person's individual needs seems likely to make the form unduly long and cumbersome for all, and trying to limit the number of treatment options will inevitably fail to cater for all individual needs.

As above

Reviewer #2: I think you did a good job with a difficult research topic. I added a couple of comments about discussing the vignette management differences seen. I thought you addressed the language ambiguity in the second part well.

Response: I have expanded on your comments discussing the case vignette in the discussion: “Interns, who are inexperienced in clinical decision-making and are used to following senior orders, were also more likely to both closely follow a resuscitation plan and consider it a useful decision-making tool. This may in part explain the statistical differences in treatment approaches seen in the case vignettes. Internationally, many resuscitation plans require a secondary signature from a senior officer, which may be one practical solution to improve cohesion in the approaches of junior and senior staff.

The suggested grammatical and phrasing amendments have also been adopted throughout the paper

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Nov 2019

The impact of language on the interpretation of resuscitation clinical care plans by doctors. A mixed methods study

PONE-D-19-20806R1

Dear Dr. Dignam,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Andrew Carl Miller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have satisfactorily answered the reviews queries.

11 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-20806R1

The impact of language on the interpretation of resuscitation clinical care plans by doctors. A mixed methods study.

Dear Dr. Dignam:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrew Carl Miller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE