Abstract
Background
Emergency care treatment plans provide recommendations about treatment, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, to be considered in emergency medical situations. In 2016, the Resuscitation Council United Kingdom developed a standardised emergency care treatment plan, the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment, known as ReSPECT. There are advantages and potential difficulties in initiating the ReSPECT process in primary care. Hospital doctors and general practitioners may use the process differently and recommendations do not always translate between settings. There are no large studies of the use of ReSPECT in the community.
Study aim
To evaluate how, when and why ReSPECT is used in primary care and what effect it has on patient treatment and care.
Design
A mixed-methods approach using interviews, focus groups, surveys and evaluation of ReSPECT forms within an analytical framework of normalisation process theory.
Setting
A total of 13 general practices and 13 care homes across 3 areas of England.
Participants
General practitioners, senior primary care nurses, senior care home staff, patients and their relatives, community and emergency department clinicians and home care workers, people with learning disability and their carers. National surveys of (1) the public and (2) general practitioners.
Results
Members of the public are supportive of emergency care treatment plans. Respondents recognised benefits of plans but also potential risks if the recommendations become out of date.
The ReSPECT plans were used by 345/842 (41%) of general practitioner survey respondents. Those who used ReSPECT were more likely to be comfortable having emergency care treatment conversations than respondents who used standalone ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ forms.
The recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment was conceptualised by all participants as person centred, enabling patients to have some say over future treatment decisions. Including families in the discussion is seen as important so they know the patient’s wishes, which facilitates decision-making in an emergency. Writing recommendations is challenging because of uncertainty around future clinical events and treatment options. Care home staff described conflict over treatment decisions with clinicians attending in an emergency, with treatment decisions not always reflecting recommendations.
People with a ReSPECT plan and their relatives trusted that recommendations would be followed in an emergency, but carers of people with a learning disability had less confidence that this would be the case.
The ReSPECT form evaluation showed 87% (122/141) recorded free-text treatment recommendations other than cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patient preferences were recorded in 57% (81/141). Where a patient lacked capacity the presence of a relative or lasting power of attorney was recorded in two-thirds of forms.
Limitations
Recruitment for patient/relative interviews was less than anticipated so caution is required in interpreting these data. Minority ethnic groups were under-represented across our studies.
Conclusions
The aims of ReSPECT are supported by health and social care professionals, patients, and the public. Uncertainty around illness trajectory and treatment options for a patient in a community setting cannot be easily translated into specific recommendations. This can lead to conflict and variation in how recommendations are interpreted.
Future work
Future research should explore how best to integrate patient values into treatment decision-making in an emergency.
Study registration
This study is registered as NCT05046197.
Emergency care treatment plans provide recommendations about treatment, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, to be considered in emergency medical situations. In 2016, the Resuscitation Council United Kingdom developed a standardised emergency care treatment plan, the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment, known as ReSPECT. There are advantages and potential difficulties in initiating the ReSPECT process in primary care. Hospital doctors and general practitioners may use the process differently and recommendations do not always translate between settings. There are no large studies of the use of ReSPECT in the community.
Study aim
To evaluate how, when and why ReSPECT is used in primary care and what effect it has on patient treatment and care.
Design
A mixed-methods approach using interviews, focus groups, surveys and evaluation of ReSPECT forms within an analytical framework of normalisation process theory.
Setting
A total of 13 general practices and 13 care homes across 3 areas of England.
Participants
General practitioners, senior primary care nurses, senior care home staff, patients and their relatives, community and emergency department clinicians and home care workers, people with learning disability and their carers. National surveys of (1) the public and (2) general practitioners.
Results
Members of the public are supportive of emergency care treatment plans. Respondents recognised benefits of plans but also potential risks if the recommendations become out of date.
The ReSPECT plans were used by 345/842 (41%) of general practitioner survey respondents. Those who used ReSPECT were more likely to be comfortable having emergency care treatment conversations than respondents who used standalone ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ forms.
The recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment was conceptualised by all participants as person centred, enabling patients to have some say over future treatment decisions. Including families in the discussion is seen as important so they know the patient’s wishes, which facilitates decision-making in an emergency. Writing recommendations is challenging because of uncertainty around future clinical events and treatment options. Care home staff described conflict over treatment decisions with clinicians attending in an emergency, with treatment decisions not always reflecting recommendations.
People with a ReSPECT plan and their relatives trusted that recommendations would be followed in an emergency, but carers of people with a learning disability had less confidence that this would be the case.
The ReSPECT form evaluation showed 87% (122/141) recorded free-text treatment recommendations other than cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patient preferences were recorded in 57% (81/141). Where a patient lacked capacity the presence of a relative or lasting power of attorney was recorded in two-thirds of forms.
Limitations
Recruitment for patient/relative interviews was less than anticipated so caution is required in interpreting these data. Minority ethnic groups were under-represented across our studies.
Conclusions
The aims of ReSPECT are supported by health and social care professionals, patients, and the public. Uncertainty around illness trajectory and treatment options for a patient in a community setting cannot be easily translated into specific recommendations. This can lead to conflict and variation in how recommendations are interpreted.
Future work
Future research should explore how best to integrate patient values into treatment decision-making in an emergency.
Study registration
This study is registered as NCT05046197.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 186 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-155 |
| Number of pages | 155 |
| Journal | Health and Social Care Delivery Research |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 42 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Nov 2024 |