Suppr超能文献

在初级保健中使用推荐的紧急护理和治疗计划摘要:一项混合方法研究。

Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment in Primary Care: a mixed methods study.

机构信息

Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Oct;12(42):1-155. doi: 10.3310/NVTF7521.

Abstract

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 Respondents recognised benefits of plans but also potential risks if the recommendations become out of date.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.

摘要

背景

急救护理计划提供了在紧急医疗情况下需要考虑的治疗建议,包括心肺复苏术。2016 年,英国复苏理事会制定了一个标准化的急救护理计划,即推荐的急救和治疗概要计划,称为 ReSPECT。在初级保健中启动 ReSPECT 流程有其优势和潜在困难。医院医生和全科医生可能会以不同的方式使用该流程,并且建议并不总是在不同环境中翻译。在社区中,没有关于 ReSPECT 使用情况的大型研究。

研究目的

评估 ReSPECT 在初级保健中的使用方式、时间和原因,以及它对患者治疗和护理的影响。

设计

使用访谈、焦点小组、调查以及在正常化过程理论分析框架内对 ReSPECT 表格进行评估的混合方法。

设置

在英格兰的 3 个地区的总共 13 家全科诊所和 13 家护理院。

参与者

全科医生、高级初级保健护士、高级护理院工作人员、患者及其亲属、社区和急诊部门临床医生以及家庭护理人员、有学习障碍的人及其照顾者。(1)公众和(2)全科医生的全国性调查。

结果

公众支持急救护理计划。受访者认识到计划的好处,但如果建议变得过时,也可能存在潜在风险。在全科医生调查受访者中,有 345/842 人(41%)使用了 ReSPECT 计划。与使用单独的“不进行心肺复苏术”表格的受访者相比,使用 ReSPECT 的受访者更有可能愿意进行急救护理对话。推荐的急救概要计划被所有参与者概念化为以患者为中心的,使患者能够对未来的治疗决策有一定的发言权。让家属参与讨论被视为重要的,这样他们就知道患者的意愿,这有助于在紧急情况下做出决策。由于未来临床事件和治疗选择的不确定性,编写建议具有挑战性。护理院工作人员描述了与紧急情况下就诊的临床医生在治疗决策方面的冲突,治疗决策并不总是反映建议。有 ReSPECT 计划和其亲属的人信任在紧急情况下会遵循建议,但有学习障碍的人的照顾者则不太相信这会发生。ReSPECT 表格评估显示,87%(122/141)记录了除心肺复苏术以外的其他治疗建议。57%(81/141)记录了患者的偏好。如果患者没有能力,在表格中记录了三分之二的情况下有亲属或持久授权书的存在。

局限性

患者/亲属访谈的招募人数低于预期,因此在解释这些数据时需要谨慎。我们的研究中少数民族群体代表性不足。

结论

ReSPECT 的目标得到了卫生和社会保健专业人员、患者和公众的支持。在社区环境中,患者的疾病轨迹和治疗选择的不确定性无法轻易转化为具体的建议。这可能导致建议的解释产生冲突和差异。

未来工作

未来的研究应该探索如何最好地将患者的价值观纳入紧急情况下的治疗决策。

研究注册

本研究由英国国家健康与保健卓越研究所(NIHR)健康与社会保健交付研究计划(NIHR 奖 REF:NIHR131316)资助,并在《健康与社会保健交付研究》中全文发表;第 12 卷,第 42 期。有关该奖项的更多信息,请访问 NIHR 资助和奖项网站。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验