Martin Underwood, Angela Noufaily, Hazel Blanchard, Jeremy Dale, Jenny Harlock, Paramjit Gill, Frances Griffiths, Rachel Spencer, Anne-Marie Slowther
{"title":"GPs' views on emergency care treatment plans: an online survey.","authors":"Martin Underwood, Angela Noufaily, Hazel Blanchard, Jeremy Dale, Jenny Harlock, Paramjit Gill, Frances Griffiths, Rachel Spencer, Anne-Marie Slowther","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To find out GPs' experiences of, and views on, using ECTPs.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Online survey of GPs practising in England.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 841 GPs were surveyed using the monthly online survey provided by medeConnect, a market research company.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11300997/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
