Why, when and how do secondary-care clinicians have emergency care and treatment planning conversations? Qualitative findings from the ReSPECT Evaluation study

Characterising trends in the initiation, timing, and completion of recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) plans: Retrospective analysis of routine data from a large UK hospital trust

AIM

To assess patient socio-demographic and disease characteristics associated with the initiation, timing, and completion of emergency care and treatment planning in a large UK-based hospital trust.

METHODS

Secondary retrospective analysis of data across 32 months extracted from digitally stored Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plans within the electronic health record system of an acute hospital trust in England, UK.

RESULTS

Data analysed from ReSPECT plans (n = 23,729), indicate an increase in the proportion of admissions having a plan created from 4.2% in January 2019 to 6.9% in August 2021 (mean = 8.1%). Forms were completed a median of 41 days before death (a median of 58 days for patients with capacity, and 21 days for patients without capacity). Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation was more likely to be recorded for patients lacking capacity, with increasing age (notably for patients aged over 74 years), being female and the presence of multiple disease groups. 'Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' was less likely to be recorded for patients having ethnicity recorded as Asian or Asian British and Black or Black British compared to White. Having a preferred place of death recorded as 'hospital' led to a five-fold increase in the likelihood of dying in hospital.

CONCLUSION

Variation in the initiation, timing, and completion of ReSPECT plans was identified by applying an evaluation framework. Digital storage of ReSPECT plan data presents opportunities for assessing trends and completion of the ReSPECT planning process and benchmarking across sites. Further research is required to monitor and understand any inequity in the implementation of the ReSPECT process in routine care.

GPs' views on emergency care treatment plans: an online survey

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.

Patient and relative experiences of the ReSPECT process in the community: an interview-based study

BACKGROUND

The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was launched in the UK in 2016. ReSPECT is designed to facilitate meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals, patients, and their relatives about preferences for treatment in future emergencies; however, no study has investigated patients' and relatives' experiences of ReSPECT in the community.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how patients and relatives in community settings experience the ReSPECT process and engage with the completed form.

METHODS

Patients who had a ReSPECT form were identified through general practice surgeries in three areas in England; either patients or their relatives (where patients lacked capacity) were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, focusing on the participants' understandings and experiences of the ReSPECT process and form. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen interviews took place (six with patients, four with relatives, three with patient and relative pairs). Four themes were developed: (1) ReSPECT records a patient's wishes, but is entangled in wider relationships; (2) healthcare professionals' framings of ReSPECT influence patients' and relatives' experiences; (3) patients and relatives perceive ReSPECT as a do-not-resuscitate or end-of-life form; (4) patients' and relatives' relationships with the ReSPECT form as a material object vary widely. Patients valued the opportunity to express their wishes and conceptualised ReSPECT as a process of caring for themselves and for their family members' emotional wellbeing. Participants who described their ReSPECT experiences positively said healthcare professionals clearly explained the ReSPECT process and form, allocated sufficient time for an open discussion of patients' preferences, and provided empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations. In cases where participants said healthcare professionals did not provide clear explanations or did not engage them in a conversation, experiences ranged from confusion about the form and how it would be used to lingering feelings of worry, upset, or being burdened with responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS

When ReSPECT conversations involved an open discussion of patients' preferences, clear information about the ReSPECT process, and empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations, working with a healthcare professional to co-develop a record of treatment preferences and recommendations could be an empowering experience, providing patients and relatives with peace of mind.

Examining how goals of care communication are conducted between doctors and patients with severe acute illness in hospital settings: A realist systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement in goals of care decision-making has shown to enhance satisfaction, affective-cognitive outcomes, allocative efficiency, and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. However, the involvement of patients in goals of care planning within hospitals remains limited, particularly where mismatches in shared understanding between doctors and patients are present.

AIM

To identify and critically examine factors influencing goals of care conversations between doctors and patients during acute hospital illness.

DESIGN

Realist systematic review following the RAMESES standards. A protocol has been published in PROSPERO (CRD42021297410). The review utilised realist synthesis methodology, including a scoping literature search to generate initial theories, theory refinement through stakeholder consultation, and a systematic literature search to support program theory.

DATA SOURCES

Data were collected from Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus databases (1946 to 14 July 2023), citation tracking, and Google Scholar. Open-Grey was utilized to identify relevant grey literature. Studies were selected based on relevance and rigor to support theory development.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 52 papers, supporting seven context-mechanism-output (CMO) hypotheses. Findings suggest that shared doctor-patient understanding relies on doctors being confident, competent, and personable to foster trusting relationships with patients. Low doctor confidence often leads to avoidance of discussions. Moreover, information provided to patients is often inconsistent, biased, procedure-focused, and lacks personalisation. Acute illness, medical jargon, poor health literacy, and high emotional states further hinder patient understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Goals of care conversations in hospitals are nuanced and often suboptimal. To improve patient experiences and outcome of care interventions should be personalised and tailored to individual needs, emphasizing effective communication and trusting relationships among patients, families, doctors, and healthcare teams. Inclusion of caregivers and acknowledgment at the service level are crucial for achieving desired outcomes. Implications for policy, research, and clinical practice, including further training and skills development for doctors, are discussed.

Perspectives of healthcare professionals and older patients on shared decision-making for treatment escalation planning in the acute hospital setting: a systematic review and qualitative thematic synthesis

Background

Shared Decision-Making (SDM) between patients and clinicians is increasingly considered important. Treament Escalation Plans (TEP) are individualised documents outlining life-saving interventions to be considered in the event of clinical deterioration. SDM can inform subjective goals of care in TEP but it remains unclear how much it is considered beneficial by patients and clinicians. We aimed to synthesise the existing knowledge of clinician and older patient (generally aged ≥65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting.

Methods

Systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases as well as grey literature from database inception to June 8, 2023, using the Sample (older patients, clinicians, acute setting; studies relating to patients whose main diagnosis was cancer or single organ failure were excluded as these conditions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) tool. Primary data (published participant quotations, field notes, survey results) and descriptive author comments were extracted and qualitative thematic synthesis was performed to generate analytic themes. Quality assessment was made using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess overall confidence in each thematic finding according to methodology, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the contributing studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022361593.

Findings

Following duplicate exclusion there were 1916 studies screened and ultimately 13 studies were included, all from European and North American settings. Clinician-orientated themes were: treatment escalation is a medical decision (high confidence); clinicians want the best for their patients amidst uncertainty (high confidence); involving patients and families in decisions is not always meaningful and can involve conflict (high confidence); treatment escalation planning exists within the clinical environment, organisation and society (moderate confidence). Patient-orientated themes were: patients' relationships with Treatment Escalation Planning are complex (low confidence); interactions with doctors are important but communication is not always easy (moderate confidence); patients are highly aware of their families when considering TEP (moderate confidence).

Interpretation

Based on current evidence, TEP decisions appear dominated by clinicians' perspectives, motivated by achieving the best for patients and challenged by complex decisions, communication and environmental factors; older patients' perspectives have seldom been explored, but their input on decisions may be modest. Presenting the context and challenge of SDM during professional education may allow reflection and a more nuanced approach. Future research should seek to understand what approach to TEP decision-making patients and clinicians consider to be optimum in the acute setting so that a mutually acceptable standard can be defined in policy.

Funding

HCA International and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.

The experiences of adult patients, families, and healthcare professionals of CPR decision-making conversations in the United Kingdom: A qualitative systematic review

Aim

To conduct a qualitative systematic review on the experiences of patients, families, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) of CPR decision-making conversations in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods

The databases PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched. Studies published from 1 January 2012 describing experiences of CPR decision-making conversations in the UK were included. Included studies were critically appraised using the CASP tool. Thematic synthesis was conducted.

Results

From 684 papers identified, ten studies were included. Four key themes were identified:(i) Initiation of conversations - Key prompts for the discussion included clinical deterioration and poor prognosis. There are different perspectives about who should initiate conversations.(ii) Involvement of patients and families - HCPs were reluctant to involve patients who they thought would become distressed by the conversation, while patients varied in their desire to be involved. Patients wanted family support while HCPs viewed families as potential sources of conflict.(iii) Influences on the content of conversations - Location, context, HCPs' attitudes and emotions, and uncertainty of prognosis influenced the content of conversations.(iv) Conversation outcomes - Range of outcomes included emotional distress, sense of relief and value, disagreements, and incomplete conversations.

Conclusions

There is inconsistency in how these conversations occur, patients' desire to be involved, and between patients' and HCPs' views on the role of families in these conversations. CPR discussions raise ethical challenges for HCPs. HCPs need training and pastoral support in conducting CPR discussions. Patients and families need education on CPR recommendations and support after discussions.

Which patients received a ReSPECT form, what was documented and what were the patient outcomes? A protocol for a retrospective observational study investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the ReSPECT process

INTRODUCTION

Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is a UK advance care planning (ACP) initiative aiming to standardise the process of creating personalised recommendations for a person's clinical care in a future emergency and therefore improve person-focused care. Implementation of the ReSPECT process across a large geographical area, involving both community and secondary care, has not previously been studied. In particular, it not known whether such implementation is associated with any change in outcomes for those patients with a ReSPECT form.Implementation of ReSPECT in the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area overlapped with the first UK COVID-19 wave. It is unclear what impact the pandemic had on the implementation of ReSPECT and if this affected the type of patients who underwent the ReSPECT process, such as those with specific diagnoses or living in care homes. Patterns of clinical recommendations documented on ReSPECT forms during the first year of its implementation may also have changed, particularly with reference to the pandemic.To determine the equity and potential benefits of implementation of the ReSPECT form process in BNSSG and contribute to the ACP evidence base, this study will describe the characteristics of patients in the BNSSG area who had a completed ReSPECT form recorded in their primary care medical records before, during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic; describe the content of ReSPECT forms; and analyse outcomes for those patients who died with a ReSPECT form.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform an observational retrospective study on data, collected from October 2019 for 12 months. Data will be exported from the CCG Public Health Management data resource, a pseudonymised database linking data from organisations providing health and social care to people across BNSSG. Descriptive statistics of sociodemographic and health-related variables for those who completed the ReSPECT process with a clinician and had a documented ReSPECT form in their notes, in addition to their ReSPECT form responses, will be compared between before, during and after first COVID-19 wave groups. Additionally, routinely collected outcomes for patients who died in our study period will be compared between those who completed the ReSPECT process with a community clinician, hospital clinician or not at all. These include emergency department attendances, emergency hospital admissions, community nurse home visits, hospice referrals, anticipatory medication prescribing, place of death and if the patient died in preferred place of death.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval has been obtained from a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (20/YH/0185). Findings will be disseminated to policy decision-makers, care providers and the public through scientific meetings and peer-reviewed publication.

Implementation of ReSPECT in acute hospitals: A retrospective observational study

AIMS

To evaluate, in UK acute hospitals, the early implementation of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT), which embeds cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recommendations within wider emergency treatment plans. To understand for whom and how the process was being used and the quality of form completion.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study evaluating emergency care and treatment planning approaches used in acute UK hospitals (2015-2019), and in six English hospital trusts the extent of ReSPECT use, patient characteristics and completion quality in a sample 3000 patient case notes.

RESULTS

The use of stand-alone Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation forms fell from 133/186 hospitals in 2015 to 64/186 in 2019 (a 38% absolute reduction). ReSPECT accounted for 52% (36/69) of changes. In the six sites, ReSPECT was used for approximately 20% of patients (range 6%-41%). They tended to be older, to have had an emergency medical admission, to have cognitive impairment and a lower predicted 10 year survival. Most (653/706 (92%)) included a 'not for attempted resuscitation' recommendation 551/706 (78%) had at least one other treatment recommendation. Capacity was not recorded on 13% (95/706) of forms; 11% (79/706) did not record patient/family involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

ReSPECT use accounts for 52% of the change, observed between 2015 and 2019, from using standalone DNACPR forms to approaches embedding DNACPR decisions within in wider emergency care plans in NHS hospitals in the UK. Whilst recommendations include other emergencies most still tend to focus on recommendations relating to CPR. Completion of ReSPECT forms requires improvement.

STUDY REGISTRATION

https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11112933.

Responding to the deteriorating patient: The rationale for treatment escalation plans

A Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) is a communication tool designed to improve quality of care in hospital, particularly if patients deteriorate. The aims are to reduce variation caused by discontinuity of care; avoid harms caused by inappropriate treatment and promote patients’ priorities and preferences. The TEP is based on the goals of treatment – ‘What are we trying to achieve?’ The goals take account of the context of acute illness, the consequences of interventions and discussion with the patient. They should reflect a shift away from ‘fix-it’ medicine to what is realistic and pragmatic. A TEP has three escalation categories: full escalation, selected appropriate treatments and palliative/supportive care. Other appropriate/inappropriate treatments are also recorded. Treatment Escalation Plans are associated with significant reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, non-beneficial interventions, harms and complaints. Treatment Escalation Plans contribute to staff well-being by reducing uncertainty. Successful implementation requires training and education in medical decision-making and communication skills.

Why are some ReSPECT conversations left incomplete? A qualitative case study analysis

Background

As an emergency care and treatment planning process (ECTP), a key feature of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is the engagement of patients and/or their representatives in conversations about treatment options including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, qualitative research suggests that some ReSPECT conversations lead to partial or no decision-making about treatment recommendations. This paper explores why some ReSPECT conversations are left incomplete.

Methods

Drawing on observation and interview data collected in four National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England, this paper offers an in-depth exploration of six case studies in which ReSPECT conversations were incomplete. Using thematic analysis, we triangulate fieldnote data documenting these conversations with interview data in which the doctors who conducted these conversations shared their perceptions and reflected on their decision-making processes.

Results

We identified two themes, both focused on 'mismatch': (1) Mismatch between the doctor's clinical priorities and the patient's/family's immediate needs; and (2) mismatch between the doctor's conversation scripts, which included patient autonomy, the feasibility of CPR, and what medicine can and should do to prolong a patient's life, and the patient's/family's understandings of these concepts.

Conclusions

This case study analysis of six ReSPECT conversations found that mismatch between doctors' priorities and understandings and those of patients and/or their relatives led to incomplete ReSPECT conversations. Future research should explore methods to overcome these mismatches.

Caring in the silences: why physicians and surgeons do not discuss emergency care and treatment planning with their patients - an analysis of hospital-based ethnographic case studies in England

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing emphasis on integrating emergency care and treatment planning (ECTP) into routine medical practice, clinicians continue to delay or avoid ECTP conversations with patients. However, little is known about the clinical logics underlying barriers to ECTP conversations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop an ethnographic account of how and why clinicians defer and avoid ECTP conversations, and how they rationalise these decisions as they happen.

DESIGN

A multisited ethnographic study.

SETTING

Medical, orthopaedic and surgical wards in hospitals within four acute National Health Service trusts in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four doctors were formally observed and 32 formally interviewed. Following an ethnographic case study approach, six cases were selected for in-depth analysis.

ANALYSIS

Fieldnote data were triangulated with interview data, to develop a 'thick description' of each case. Using a conceptual framework of care, the analysis highlighted the clinical logics underlying these cases.

RESULTS

The deferral or avoidance of ECTP conversations was driven by concerns over caring well, with clinicians attempting to optimise both medical and bedside practice. Conducting an ECTP conversation carefully meant attending to patients' and relatives' emotions and committing sufficient time for an in-depth discussion. However, conversation plans were often disrupted by issues related to timing and time constraints, leading doctors to defer these conversations, sometimes indefinitely. Additionally, whereas surgeons and geriatricians deferred conversations because they did not have the time to offer detailed discussions, emergency and acute medicine clinicians deferred conversations because the high-turnover ward environment, combined with patients' acute conditions, meant triaging conversations to those most in need.

CONCLUSION

Overcoming barriers to ECTP conversations is not simply a matter of enhancing training or hospital policies, but of promoting good conversational practices that take into account the affordances of hospital time and space, as well as clinicians' understandings of caring well.