RESUMO
Background: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) includes agreed clinical recommendations for a person's care in a future emergency which have been informed by discussion of the person's preferences. Previous evaluation of ReSPECT plans in acute NHS hospitals found inconsistencies in recording patient's preferences and involvement in the plan, and infrequent justification for recommendations. Aim: To explore to what extent ReSPECT recommendations reflect individual preferences, as documented in the plan. Methods: ReSPECT plans of adults were collected from 11 General Practices in England. We adapted an evaluation tool used previously to analyse ReSPECT plans in acute settings. Free text sections for individual values/preferences and clinical recommendations were examined for clarity, consistency and congruency between them. Results: We retrieved 141 ReSPECT plans. Patients or those close to the patient were recorded as being consulted in most plans (94%). Individual preferences were completed in 57% of plans. Clinical recommendations reflected individual preferences by directly referencing the person and their preferences (31%), by being consistent with the documented preferences (30%), or by using the same wording as the preferences (6%). Conclusion: While many clinical recommendations reflect individual preferences, the preferences themselves are only recorded in just over half of ReSPECT plans. This is problematic, because the recording of individual preferences facilitates person-centred care, both directly by informing recommendations and indirectly when used to guide decision-making in situations not anticipated in the plan. Future training for clinicians should emphasize the need to document the personal values section of the plan.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A holistic approach to emergency care treatment planning is needed to ensure that patients' preferences are considered should their clinical condition deteriorate. To address this, emergency care and treatment plans (ECTPs) have been introduced. Little is known about their use in general practice. AIM: To find out GPs' experiences of, and views on, using ECTPs. DESIGN & SETTING: Online survey of GPs practising in England. METHOD: A total of 841 GPs were surveyed using the monthly online survey provided by medeConnect, a market research company. RESULTS: Forty-one per cent of responders' practices used Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plans for ECTP, 8% used other ECTPs, and 51% used Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms. GPs were the predominant professional group completing ECTPs in the community. There was broad support for a wider range of community-based health and social care professionals being able to complete ECTPs. There was no system for reviewing ECTPs in 20% of responders' practices. When compared with using a DNACPR form, GPs using a ReSPECT form for ECTP were more comfortable having conversations about emergency care treatment with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 2.69) and family members (OR =1.85, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.87). CONCLUSION: The potential benefits and challenges of widening the pool of health and social care professionals initiating and/or completing the ECTP process needs consideration. ReSPECT plans appear to make GPs more comfortable with ECTP discussions, supporting their implementation. Practice-based systems for reviewing ECTP decisions should be strengthened.
RESUMO
Background The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) has been implemented in many areas of the UK. It is unclear how ReSPECT is used in primary and community care settings. Aim To investigate how the ReSPECT process is understood and experienced in the community by clinicians, social care staff, patients, their relatives, and identify obstacles and enablers to its implementation. Design and setting. A qualitative interview and focus group study across 13 general practices in three areas in England. Method We interviewed GPs, specialist nurses, patients and relatives, and senior care home staff. Focus groups were conducted with community-nurses, paramedics, and home-care workers. Questions focused on understanding experiences of and engagements with ReSPECT. We analysed data using thematic analysis and a coding framework drawn from Normalisation Process Theory. Results Participants included 21 GPs, five specialist nurses, nine patients, seven relatives, 31 care home staff, nine community nurses, seven home-care workers and two paramedics. Participants supported ReSPECT regarding it as a tool to facilitate person-centred care. GPs faced challenges in timing introduction of ReSPECT and ensuring sufficient time to complete plans with patients. ReSPECT conversations worked best when there was a trusting relationship between clinician and patient (and their family). Anticipating future illness trajectories was difficult yet plans were rarely reviewed. Interpreting recommendations in emergencies was challenging. Conclusion The ReSPECT process has not translated as well as expected in the community setting. A revised approach is needed to address the challenges of implementation in this context.