在初级医疗中使用《建议的紧急护理和治疗简要计划》:一项混合方法研究。

Anne-Marie Slowther, Jenny Harlock, Celia J Bernstein, Katie Bruce, Karin Eli, Caroline J Huxley, Jacqui Lovell, Claire Mann, Angela Noufaily, Sophie Rees, Julia Walsh, Chris Bain, Hazel Blanchard, Jeremy Dale, Paramjit Gill, Claire A Hawkes, Gavin D Perkins, Rachel Spencer, Chris Turner, Amy M Russell, Martin Underwood, Frances Griffiths
{"title":"在初级医疗中使用《建议的紧急护理和治疗简要计划》:一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Anne-Marie Slowther, Jenny Harlock, Celia J Bernstein, Katie Bruce, Karin Eli, Caroline J Huxley, Jacqui Lovell, Claire Mann, Angela Noufaily, Sophie Rees, Julia Walsh, Chris Bain, Hazel Blanchard, Jeremy Dale, Paramjit Gill, Claire A Hawkes, Gavin D Perkins, Rachel Spencer, Chris Turner, Amy M Russell, Martin Underwood, Frances Griffiths","doi":"10.3310/NVTF7521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study aim: </strong>To evaluate how, when and why ReSPECT is used in primary care and what effect it has on patient treatment and care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods approach using interviews, focus groups, surveys and evaluation of ReSPECT forms within an analytical framework of normalisation process theory.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A total of 13 general practices and 13 care homes across 3 areas of England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Future research should explore how best to integrate patient values into treatment decision-making in an emergency.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as NCT05046197.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131316) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 42. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 42","pages":"1-155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment in Primary Care: a mixed methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Anne-Marie Slowther, Jenny Harlock, Celia J Bernstein, Katie Bruce, Karin Eli, Caroline J Huxley, Jacqui Lovell, Claire Mann, Angela Noufaily, Sophie Rees, Julia Walsh, Chris Bain, Hazel Blanchard, Jeremy Dale, Paramjit Gill, Claire A Hawkes, Gavin D Perkins, Rachel Spencer, Chris Turner, Amy M Russell, Martin Underwood, Frances Griffiths\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/NVTF7521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study aim: </strong>To evaluate how, when and why ReSPECT is used in primary care and what effect it has on patient treatment and care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods approach using interviews, focus groups, surveys and evaluation of ReSPECT forms within an analytical framework of normalisation process theory.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A total of 13 general practices and 13 care homes across 3 areas of England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Future research should explore how best to integrate patient values into treatment decision-making in an emergency.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as NCT05046197.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131316) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 42. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":\"12 42\",\"pages\":\"1-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/NVTF7521\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/NVTF7521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:紧急护理治疗计划提供了在紧急医疗情况下应考虑的治疗建议,包括心肺复苏。2016 年,英国复苏委员会制定了标准化的急诊护理治疗计划,即推荐的急诊护理和治疗总结计划(ReSPECT)。在基层医疗机构启动 ReSPECT 流程既有优势,也有潜在困难。医院医生和全科医生可能会以不同的方式使用该流程,而且建议并不总能在不同的环境中转化。目前还没有关于 ReSPECT 在社区使用情况的大型研究。研究目的:评估 ReSPECT 在初级医疗中的使用方式、时间和原因,以及对患者治疗和护理的影响:设计:在正常化过程理论的分析框架内,采用访谈、焦点小组、调查和 ReSPECT 表格评估等混合方法:环境:英格兰 3 个地区共 13 家全科诊所和 13 家护理院:全科医生、高级初级护理护士、高级护理院工作人员、患者及其亲属、社区和急诊科临床医生、家庭护理人员、学习障碍患者及其照顾者。对(1)公众和(2)全科医生进行了全国性调查:结果:公众支持紧急护理治疗计划。受访者认识到计划的益处,但也认识到如果建议过时可能带来的风险。345/842(41%)名全科医生调查对象使用了 ReSPECT 计划。与使用独立的 "不要尝试心肺复苏 "表格的受访者相比,使用 ReSPECT 的受访者更愿意进行紧急护理治疗对话。所有参与者都认为推荐的急救护理和治疗简要计划以人为本,使患者对未来的治疗决定有一定的发言权。让家属参与讨论很重要,这样他们就能了解病人的意愿,从而有助于在紧急情况下做出决策。由于未来临床事件和治疗方案的不确定性,撰写建议具有挑战性。护理之家的工作人员描述了他们与临床医生在紧急情况下就治疗决策发生冲突的情况,因为治疗决策并不总是反映建议。有 ReSPECT 计划的人及其亲属相信,在紧急情况下会按照建议进行治疗,但有学习障碍的人的照护者对此信心不足。ReSPECT 表格评估显示,87%(122/141)的表格记录了除心肺复苏以外的自由文本治疗建议。57%(81/141)的表格记录了患者的偏好。在患者缺乏行为能力的情况下,三分之二的表格记录了患者亲属或永久授权人的存在:局限性:患者/亲属访谈的招募人数少于预期,因此在解释这些数据时需要谨慎。少数族裔群体在我们的研究中代表性不足:ReSPECT的目标得到了医疗和社会护理专业人员、患者和公众的支持。在社区环境中,患者疾病轨迹和治疗方案的不确定性不容易转化为具体的建议。这可能会导致在如何解释建议方面出现冲突和差异:未来工作:未来的研究应探索如何在紧急情况下将患者的价值观融入治疗决策:本研究已注册为 NCT05046197:该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR131316)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》(Health and Social Care Delivery Research)第12卷第42期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment in Primary Care: a mixed methods study.

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.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131316) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 42. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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