紧急护理和治疗的推荐总结计划:ReSPECT——一项混合方法研究

G. Perkins, C. Hawkes, K. Eli, James Griffin, Claire Jacques, C. Huxley, K. Couper, Cynthia A Ochieng, J. Fuld, Z. Fritz, Robert George, D. Gould, R. Lilford, M. Underwood, Catherine Baldock, C. Bassford, P. Fortune, John Speakman, A. Wilkinson, Bob Ewings, J. Warwick, Frances Griffiths, A. Slowther
{"title":"紧急护理和治疗的推荐总结计划:ReSPECT——一项混合方法研究","authors":"G. Perkins, C. Hawkes, K. Eli, James Griffin, Claire Jacques, C. Huxley, K. Couper, Cynthia A Ochieng, J. Fuld, Z. Fritz, Robert George, D. Gould, R. Lilford, M. Underwood, Catherine Baldock, C. Bassford, P. Fortune, John Speakman, A. Wilkinson, Bob Ewings, J. Warwick, Frances Griffiths, A. Slowther","doi":"10.3310/lfpe3627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions have been widely criticised. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process was developed to facilitate shared decisions between patients and clinicians in relation to emergency treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation.\n \n \n \n To explore how, when and why ReSPECT plans are made and what effects the plans have on patient outcomes.\n \n \n \n A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising (1) a qualitative study of ReSPECT decision-making processes, (2) an interrupted time series examining process and survival outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest and (3) a retrospective observational study examining factors associated with ReSPECT recommendations and patient outcomes.\n \n \n \n NHS acute hospitals and primary care and community services in England (2017–2020).\n \n \n \n Hospital doctors, general practitioners, nurses, patients and families.\n \n \n \n The following sources were used: (1) observations of ReSPECT conversations at six hospitals and conversations with clinicians, patient, families and general practitioners, (2) survey and freedom of information data from hospitals participating in the National Cardiac Arrest Audit and (3) a review of inpatient medical records, ReSPECT forms and NHS Safety Thermometer data.\n \n \n \n By December 2019, the ReSPECT process was being used in 40 of 186 (22%) acute hospitals. In total, 792 of 3439 (23%) inpatients, usually those identified at risk of deterioration, had a ReSPECT form. Involvement of the patient and/or family was recorded on 513 of 706 (73%) ReSPECT forms reviewed. Clinicians said that lack of time prevented more conversations. Observed conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other treatments and the patient’s values and preferences. Conversation types included open-ended conversations, with clinicians actively eliciting the patients’ wishes and preferences, a persuasive approach, swaying the conversation towards a decision aligned with medical opinion, and simply informing the patient/relative about a medical decision that had already been made. The frequency of harms reported on the NHS Safety Thermometer was similar among patients with or without a ReSPECT form. Hospital doctors and general practitioners gave different views on the purpose of the ReSPECT process and the type of recommendations they would record.\n \n \n \n The research was undertaken within the first 2 years following the implementation of ReSPECT. Local policies meant that doctors led these conversations. Most patients were seriously ill, which limited opportunities for interviews. Incomplete adoption of the ReSPECT process and problems associated with the NHS Safety Thermometer tool affected the evaluation on clinical outcomes.\n \n \n \n Patients and families were involved in most ReSPECT conversations. Conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other emergency treatments. Respect for patient autonomy and duty to protect from harm informed clinicians’ approach to varying degrees, depending on the clinical situation and their views of ReSPECT as a shared decision-making process. The complexity of these conversations and the clinical, emotional and organisational barriers observed suggest that a nuanced and multifaceted approach will be necessary to support good ReSPECT processes.\n \n \n \n Further research is needed to understand the advantages and disadvantages to the adoption of a national emergency care and treatment plan system, the most effective national and local implementation approaches, and whether or not shared decision-making approaches in the context of emergency care and treatment plans could further enhance patient and family engagement.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as ISRCTN11112933.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment: ReSPECT a mixed-methods study\",\"authors\":\"G. Perkins, C. Hawkes, K. Eli, James Griffin, Claire Jacques, C. Huxley, K. Couper, Cynthia A Ochieng, J. Fuld, Z. Fritz, Robert George, D. Gould, R. Lilford, M. Underwood, Catherine Baldock, C. Bassford, P. Fortune, John Speakman, A. Wilkinson, Bob Ewings, J. Warwick, Frances Griffiths, A. Slowther\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/lfpe3627\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions have been widely criticised. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process was developed to facilitate shared decisions between patients and clinicians in relation to emergency treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation.\\n \\n \\n \\n To explore how, when and why ReSPECT plans are made and what effects the plans have on patient outcomes.\\n \\n \\n \\n A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising (1) a qualitative study of ReSPECT decision-making processes, (2) an interrupted time series examining process and survival outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest and (3) a retrospective observational study examining factors associated with ReSPECT recommendations and patient outcomes.\\n \\n \\n \\n NHS acute hospitals and primary care and community services in England (2017–2020).\\n \\n \\n \\n Hospital doctors, general practitioners, nurses, patients and families.\\n \\n \\n \\n The following sources were used: (1) observations of ReSPECT conversations at six hospitals and conversations with clinicians, patient, families and general practitioners, (2) survey and freedom of information data from hospitals participating in the National Cardiac Arrest Audit and (3) a review of inpatient medical records, ReSPECT forms and NHS Safety Thermometer data.\\n \\n \\n \\n By December 2019, the ReSPECT process was being used in 40 of 186 (22%) acute hospitals. In total, 792 of 3439 (23%) inpatients, usually those identified at risk of deterioration, had a ReSPECT form. Involvement of the patient and/or family was recorded on 513 of 706 (73%) ReSPECT forms reviewed. Clinicians said that lack of time prevented more conversations. Observed conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other treatments and the patient’s values and preferences. Conversation types included open-ended conversations, with clinicians actively eliciting the patients’ wishes and preferences, a persuasive approach, swaying the conversation towards a decision aligned with medical opinion, and simply informing the patient/relative about a medical decision that had already been made. The frequency of harms reported on the NHS Safety Thermometer was similar among patients with or without a ReSPECT form. Hospital doctors and general practitioners gave different views on the purpose of the ReSPECT process and the type of recommendations they would record.\\n \\n \\n \\n The research was undertaken within the first 2 years following the implementation of ReSPECT. Local policies meant that doctors led these conversations. Most patients were seriously ill, which limited opportunities for interviews. Incomplete adoption of the ReSPECT process and problems associated with the NHS Safety Thermometer tool affected the evaluation on clinical outcomes.\\n \\n \\n \\n Patients and families were involved in most ReSPECT conversations. Conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other emergency treatments. Respect for patient autonomy and duty to protect from harm informed clinicians’ approach to varying degrees, depending on the clinical situation and their views of ReSPECT as a shared decision-making process. The complexity of these conversations and the clinical, emotional and organisational barriers observed suggest that a nuanced and multifaceted approach will be necessary to support good ReSPECT processes.\\n \\n \\n \\n Further research is needed to understand the advantages and disadvantages to the adoption of a national emergency care and treatment plan system, the most effective national and local implementation approaches, and whether or not shared decision-making approaches in the context of emergency care and treatment plans could further enhance patient and family engagement.\\n \\n \\n \\n This study is registered as ISRCTN11112933.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":73204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/lfpe3627\",\"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/lfpe3627","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

不要尝试心肺复苏的决定受到了广泛的批评。制定紧急护理和治疗建议总结计划(ReSPECT)流程是为了促进患者和临床医生之间就紧急治疗(包括心肺复苏)做出共同决定。探讨ReSPECT计划是如何、何时以及为什么制定的,以及这些计划对患者结果的影响。混合方法评估,包括(1)ReSPECT决策过程的定性研究,(2)住院心脏骤停后检查过程和生存结果的中断时间序列,以及(3)检查与ReSPECT建议和患者结果相关的因素的回顾性观察性研究。英国国家医疗服务体系急诊医院、初级保健和社区服务(2017-2020)。医院医生、全科医生、护士、病人和家属。使用了以下来源:(1)对六家医院ReSPECT对话的观察,以及与临床医生、患者、家属和全科医生的对话,(2)参与国家心脏骤停审计的医院的调查和信息自由数据,以及(3)对住院医疗记录、ReSPECT表格和NHS安全温度计数据的审查。截至2019年12月,ReSPECT程序已在186家(22%)急性医院中的40家使用。3439名住院患者中,792人(23%)(通常是那些有恶化风险的患者)有ReSPECT表格。在审查的706份ReSPECT表中,513份(73%)记录了患者和/或家人的参与情况。临床医生表示,由于时间不够,无法进行更多的交谈。观察到的对话侧重于复苏,但也包括其他治疗方法以及患者的价值观和偏好。对话类型包括开放式对话,临床医生积极激发患者的愿望和偏好,采用有说服力的方法,将对话转向与医学意见一致的决定,并简单地将已经做出的医学决定告知患者/亲属。在有或没有ReSPECT表格的患者中,NHS安全温度计上报告的伤害频率相似。医院医生和全科医生对ReSPECT过程的目的和他们将记录的建议类型有不同的看法。这项研究是在ReSPECT实施后的头两年内进行的。地方政策意味着由医生主导这些对话。大多数患者病情严重,这限制了面谈的机会。ReSPECT过程的不完全采用以及与NHS安全温度计工具相关的问题影响了临床结果的评估。患者和家属参与了大多数ReSPECT对话。对话的重点是复苏,但也包括其他紧急治疗。尊重患者的自主权和免受伤害的义务在不同程度上告知临床医生的方法,这取决于临床情况和他们对Respect作为一个共享决策过程的看法。这些对话的复杂性以及观察到的临床、情感和组织障碍表明,有必要采取细致和多方面的方法来支持良好的ReSPECT过程。需要进一步研究,以了解采用国家紧急护理和治疗计划系统的优缺点、最有效的国家和地方实施方法,以及在紧急护理和处理计划的背景下共享决策方法是否可以进一步加强患者和家庭的参与。本研究注册号为ISRCTN11112933。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第40期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment: ReSPECT a mixed-methods study
Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions have been widely criticised. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process was developed to facilitate shared decisions between patients and clinicians in relation to emergency treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. To explore how, when and why ReSPECT plans are made and what effects the plans have on patient outcomes. A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising (1) a qualitative study of ReSPECT decision-making processes, (2) an interrupted time series examining process and survival outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest and (3) a retrospective observational study examining factors associated with ReSPECT recommendations and patient outcomes. NHS acute hospitals and primary care and community services in England (2017–2020). Hospital doctors, general practitioners, nurses, patients and families. The following sources were used: (1) observations of ReSPECT conversations at six hospitals and conversations with clinicians, patient, families and general practitioners, (2) survey and freedom of information data from hospitals participating in the National Cardiac Arrest Audit and (3) a review of inpatient medical records, ReSPECT forms and NHS Safety Thermometer data. By December 2019, the ReSPECT process was being used in 40 of 186 (22%) acute hospitals. In total, 792 of 3439 (23%) inpatients, usually those identified at risk of deterioration, had a ReSPECT form. Involvement of the patient and/or family was recorded on 513 of 706 (73%) ReSPECT forms reviewed. Clinicians said that lack of time prevented more conversations. Observed conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other treatments and the patient’s values and preferences. Conversation types included open-ended conversations, with clinicians actively eliciting the patients’ wishes and preferences, a persuasive approach, swaying the conversation towards a decision aligned with medical opinion, and simply informing the patient/relative about a medical decision that had already been made. The frequency of harms reported on the NHS Safety Thermometer was similar among patients with or without a ReSPECT form. Hospital doctors and general practitioners gave different views on the purpose of the ReSPECT process and the type of recommendations they would record. The research was undertaken within the first 2 years following the implementation of ReSPECT. Local policies meant that doctors led these conversations. Most patients were seriously ill, which limited opportunities for interviews. Incomplete adoption of the ReSPECT process and problems associated with the NHS Safety Thermometer tool affected the evaluation on clinical outcomes. Patients and families were involved in most ReSPECT conversations. Conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other emergency treatments. Respect for patient autonomy and duty to protect from harm informed clinicians’ approach to varying degrees, depending on the clinical situation and their views of ReSPECT as a shared decision-making process. The complexity of these conversations and the clinical, emotional and organisational barriers observed suggest that a nuanced and multifaceted approach will be necessary to support good ReSPECT processes. Further research is needed to understand the advantages and disadvantages to the adoption of a national emergency care and treatment plan system, the most effective national and local implementation approaches, and whether or not shared decision-making approaches in the context of emergency care and treatment plans could further enhance patient and family engagement. This study is registered as ISRCTN11112933. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project 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
CiteScore
1.00
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