Proactive advance care planning conversations in general practice: a quality improvement project.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tabitha Winnifrith, Catherine Millington-Sanders, Emma Husbands, Jane Haros, Helen Ballinger
{"title":"Proactive advance care planning conversations in general practice: a quality improvement project.","authors":"Tabitha Winnifrith, Catherine Millington-Sanders, Emma Husbands, Jane Haros, Helen Ballinger","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of discussion, reflection and communication, enabling planning for future medical treatment. Despite evidence of benefits of ACP to patients, families and the healthcare system, many die without an opportunity for such conversations, particularly those living with progressive non-malignant conditions. The Royal College of General Practitioners and Marie Curie Daffodil Standards launched in 2020 provide primary care with a structure for improving end-of-life care, including delivery of ACP. Proactive identification of patients is integral to the approach.We report on a quality improvement project which aimed to assess the take-up rate and acceptability in general practice of a timely and personalised ACP conversation using a 'What matters to you' (WMTY) framework, and to ensure that different diagnostic and demographic groups were included.Patients without previous ACP and potentially in the last year of life were offered an ACP conversation; a survey sought feedback.81% accepted the offer and in most cases, future care guidance was documented using the recognised format in Gloucestershire for recording ACP conversations, the Recommended Summary for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plan. Clinician and patient satisfaction was high.We concluded that an ACP discussion using a 'WMTY' format was highly acceptable to most. With recognised enablers in place and known barriers minimised, valuable personalised conversations occurred. Reframing the conversation to focus on how someone wants to live, while including their priorities for death, could alter how such conversations are perceived by clinicians and the public. It could remove negative associations (such as linking these conversations with an imminent death), which may increase motivation for all to initiate discussions.ACP conversations are evidenced best practice and could become routine in general practice with adjustments to practice processes and clinician education; the Daffodil Standards facilitate continued quality improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11256018/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of discussion, reflection and communication, enabling planning for future medical treatment. Despite evidence of benefits of ACP to patients, families and the healthcare system, many die without an opportunity for such conversations, particularly those living with progressive non-malignant conditions. The Royal College of General Practitioners and Marie Curie Daffodil Standards launched in 2020 provide primary care with a structure for improving end-of-life care, including delivery of ACP. Proactive identification of patients is integral to the approach.We report on a quality improvement project which aimed to assess the take-up rate and acceptability in general practice of a timely and personalised ACP conversation using a 'What matters to you' (WMTY) framework, and to ensure that different diagnostic and demographic groups were included.Patients without previous ACP and potentially in the last year of life were offered an ACP conversation; a survey sought feedback.81% accepted the offer and in most cases, future care guidance was documented using the recognised format in Gloucestershire for recording ACP conversations, the Recommended Summary for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plan. Clinician and patient satisfaction was high.We concluded that an ACP discussion using a 'WMTY' format was highly acceptable to most. With recognised enablers in place and known barriers minimised, valuable personalised conversations occurred. Reframing the conversation to focus on how someone wants to live, while including their priorities for death, could alter how such conversations are perceived by clinicians and the public. It could remove negative associations (such as linking these conversations with an imminent death), which may increase motivation for all to initiate discussions.ACP conversations are evidenced best practice and could become routine in general practice with adjustments to practice processes and clinician education; the Daffodil Standards facilitate continued quality improvement.

全科医学中积极主动的预先护理规划对话:质量改进项目。
预先护理计划(ACP)是一个讨论、反思和沟通的过程,能够对未来的医疗进行规划。尽管有证据表明,预先护理计划对患者、家属和医疗系统都有好处,但许多人死后却没有机会进行这样的对话,尤其是那些患有渐进性非恶性疾病的患者。皇家全科医师学院和玛丽居里水仙花标准于 2020 年推出,为基层医疗机构提供了一个改善临终关怀(包括提供 ACP)的架构。我们报告了一个质量改进项目的情况,该项目旨在评估全科医疗中使用 "对您来说重要的是什么"(WMTY)框架进行及时和个性化 ACP 对话的接受率和认可度,并确保纳入不同的诊断和人口统计群体。81%的患者接受了这一建议,在大多数情况下,使用格洛斯特郡公认的 ACP 对话记录格式,即 "建议的紧急护理和治疗摘要(ReSPECT)计划",对未来护理指导进行了记录。临床医生和患者的满意度都很高。我们的结论是,大多数人都能高度接受使用 "WMTY "格式进行的 ACP 讨论。我们的结论是,采用 "WMTY "形式进行 ACP 讨论,大多数人都能很好地接受。有了公认的促进因素,并最大限度地减少已知障碍,就能进行有价值的个性化对话。重构对话,将重点放在某人希望如何生活上,同时包括他们对死亡的优先考虑,可以改变临床医生和公众对此类对话的看法。ACP 会话是经过验证的最佳实践,通过调整实践流程和临床医生教育,可以成为全科实践中的常规做法;水仙花标准有助于持续改进质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信