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.
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.