Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in UK general practice: a qualitative exploration of the experiences of general practitioners, community-based nurses, care home staff, patients and their relatives.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Anne-Marie Slowther, Celia Jane Bernstein, Caroline Huxley, Jenny Harlock, Karin Eli, Claire Mann, Rachel Spencer, Jeremy Dale, Paramjit Gill, Hazel Blanchard, Martin Underwood, Frances Griffiths
{"title":"Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in UK general practice: a qualitative exploration of the experiences of general practitioners, community-based nurses, care home staff, patients and their relatives.","authors":"Anne-Marie Slowther, Celia Jane Bernstein, Caroline Huxley, Jenny Harlock, Karin Eli, Claire Mann, Rachel Spencer, Jeremy Dale, Paramjit Gill, Hazel Blanchard, Martin Underwood, Frances Griffiths","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0248","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

在英国全科医生中使用 "建议的紧急护理和治疗总结计划"(ReSPECT):对全科医生、社区护士、护理院工作人员、患者及其亲属的经验进行定性研究。
背景 英国许多地区都实施了 "急诊护理和治疗推荐摘要计划"(ReSPECT)。目前尚不清楚 ReSPECT 在初级和社区医疗机构中的应用情况。目的 调查临床医生、社会护理人员、患者及其亲属对 ReSPECT 流程的理解以及在社区中的体验,并确定其实施的障碍和促进因素。设计和环境。对英格兰三个地区的 13 家全科诊所进行定性访谈和焦点小组研究。方法 我们采访了全科医生、专科护士、患者和亲属以及护理院的资深员工。我们还与社区护士、护理人员和家庭护理人员进行了焦点小组讨论。问题主要集中在了解 ReSPECT 的经验和参与情况。我们采用主题分析法和规范化过程理论的编码框架对数据进行了分析。结果 参与者包括 21 名全科医生、5 名专科护士、9 名患者、7 名亲属、31 名护理院工作人员、9 名社区护士、7 名家庭护理人员和 2 名护理人员。参与者支持 ReSPECT,将其视为促进以人为本的护理的工具。全科医生在确定引入 ReSPECT 的时间以及确保有足够的时间与患者一起完成计划方面面临挑战。当临床医生与患者(及其家属)之间存在信任关系时,ReSPECT 对话效果最佳。预测未来的疾病轨迹很困难,但却很少对计划进行审查。在紧急情况下解释建议具有挑战性。结论 ReSPECT 程序在社区环境中的应用不如预期。需要对方法进行修订,以应对在这种情况下实施所面临的挑战。
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
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
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