Abstract
Objectives:
To measure community attitudes to Emergency Care and Treatment Plans (ECTPs)
Design:
Population survey
Setting:
Great Britain
Participants:
As part of the British Social Attitudes survey, sent to randomly selected addresses in Great Britain, 1,135 adults completed a module on ECTPs. The sample was nationally representative in terms of age and location, 619 (55%) were female, and 1005 (89%) were of White origin.
Outcome measures:
People’s attitudes having an ECTP for themselves now, and in the future; how comfortable they might be having a discussion about an ECTP; and how they thought such a plan might impact on their future care.
Results:
Predominately, respondents were in favour of people being able to have an ECTP, with 908/1135 (80%) being at least somewhat in favour. People in good health were less likely than those in with activity limiting chronic disease to want plan at present [52% vs. 64%, odds ratio 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.30, 2.45) p<0.001]. Developing a long-term condition or becoming disabled would lead 467/1112 (42%) and 481/1112 (43%) respectively to want an ECTP. Even more 634/1112 (57%) would want an ECTP if they developed a life-threatening condition. Predominately, 938/1,135 (83%) respondents agreed that an ECTP would help avoid their family needing to make difficult decisions on their behalf, and 939/1,135 (83%) would ensure doctors and nurses knew their wishes. Nevertheless, a majority 628/1,135 (55%) agreed that there was a serious risk that the plan could be out of date when needed. A substantial minority 330/1,135 (29%) agreed that an ECTP might lead to them not receiving life-saving treatment.
Conclusions:
There is general support for the use of emergency care and treatment plans by people of all ages. Nevertheless, many respondents felt these might be out of date when needed and prevent people receiving life-saving treatment.
To measure community attitudes to Emergency Care and Treatment Plans (ECTPs)
Design:
Population survey
Setting:
Great Britain
Participants:
As part of the British Social Attitudes survey, sent to randomly selected addresses in Great Britain, 1,135 adults completed a module on ECTPs. The sample was nationally representative in terms of age and location, 619 (55%) were female, and 1005 (89%) were of White origin.
Outcome measures:
People’s attitudes having an ECTP for themselves now, and in the future; how comfortable they might be having a discussion about an ECTP; and how they thought such a plan might impact on their future care.
Results:
Predominately, respondents were in favour of people being able to have an ECTP, with 908/1135 (80%) being at least somewhat in favour. People in good health were less likely than those in with activity limiting chronic disease to want plan at present [52% vs. 64%, odds ratio 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.30, 2.45) p<0.001]. Developing a long-term condition or becoming disabled would lead 467/1112 (42%) and 481/1112 (43%) respectively to want an ECTP. Even more 634/1112 (57%) would want an ECTP if they developed a life-threatening condition. Predominately, 938/1,135 (83%) respondents agreed that an ECTP would help avoid their family needing to make difficult decisions on their behalf, and 939/1,135 (83%) would ensure doctors and nurses knew their wishes. Nevertheless, a majority 628/1,135 (55%) agreed that there was a serious risk that the plan could be out of date when needed. A substantial minority 330/1,135 (29%) agreed that an ECTP might lead to them not receiving life-saving treatment.
Conclusions:
There is general support for the use of emergency care and treatment plans by people of all ages. Nevertheless, many respondents felt these might be out of date when needed and prevent people receiving life-saving treatment.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | bmjopen-2023-080162 |
Pages (from-to) | e080162 |
Journal | BMJ Open |
Volume | 14 |
Issue number | 9 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 23 Sept 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.