Improving the visibility and communication of treatment escalation plans in Somerset NHS foundation trust

BACKGROUND

Advance care treatment escalation plans (TEPs) are often lost between healthcare settings, leading to duplication of work and loss of patient autonomy.

OBJECTIVE

This quality improvement project reviewed the usage of TEP forms and aimed to improve completeness of documentation and visibility between admissions.

METHODS

Over four months we monitored TEP form documentation using a standardised data extraction form. This examined section completion, seniority of documenting clinician and transfer of forms to our hospital electronic patient record (EPRO). We added reminders to computer monitors on wards to improve EPRO upload.

RESULTS

Initial data demonstrated that 95% of patients (n = 230) had a TEP, with 99% of TEPs recording resuscitation status. However, other sections were not well documented (patient capacity 57% completion and personal priorities 45% completion, respectively). Only 11.9% of TEPs documented consultant involvement. Furthermore, only 44% of TEPs with a do not attempt resuscitation (DNACPR) decision were uploaded. Following this, we added reminders to computer monitors explaining how to upload TEP decisions to EPRO, which increased EPRO uploads to 74%.

CONCLUSION

Communication of TEPs needs improving across healthcare settings. This project showed that the use of a physical reminder can greatly improve communication of treatment escalation decisions. Furthermore, this intervention has inspired future projects aiming at making communication more sustainable through the use of discharge summaries.

Development of the Recommended Summary Plan for eEmergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT)

INTRODUCTION

Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) practice has been shown to be variable and sub-optimal. This paper describes the development of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). ReSPECT is a process which encourages shared understanding of a patient's condition and what outcomes they value and fear, before recording clinical recommendations about cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) within a broader plan for emergency care and treatment.

METHODS

ReSPECT was developed iteratively, with integral stakeholder engagement, informed by the Knowledge-to-Action cycle. Mixed methods included: synthesis of existing literature; a national online consultation exercise; cognitive interviews with users; a patient-public involvement (PPI) workshop and a usability pilot, to ensure acceptability by both patients and professionals.

RESULTS

The majority (89%) of consultation respondents supported the concept of emergency care and treatment plans. Key features identified in the evaluation and incorporated into ReSPECT were: The importance of discussions between patient and clinician to inform realistic treatment preferences and clarity in the resulting recommendations recorded by the clinician on the form. The process is compliant with UK mental capacity laws. Documentation should be recognised across all health and care settings. There should be opportunity for timely review based on individual need.

CONCLUSION

ReSPECT is designed to facilitate discussions about a person's preferences to inform emergency care and treatment plans (including CPR) for use across all health and care settings. It has been developed iteratively with a range of stakeholders. Further research will be needed to assess the influence of ReSPECT on patient-centred decisions, experience and health outcomes.