4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Secondary care consultant clinicians’ experiences of conducting emergency care and treatment planning conversations in England: an interview-based analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To examine secondary care consultant clinicians’ experiences of conducting conversations about treatment escalation with patients and their relatives, using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process.

          Design

          Semi-structured interviews following ward round observations.

          Setting

          Two National Health Service hospitals in England.

          Participants

          Fifteen medical and surgical consultants from 10 specialties, observed in 14 wards.

          Analysis

          Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

          Results

          Three themes were developed: (1) determining when and with whom to conduct a ReSPECT conversation; (2) framing the ReSPECT conversation to manage emotions and relationships and (3) reaching ReSPECT decisions. The results showed that when timing ReSPECT conversations, consultant clinicians rely on their predictions of a patient’s short-term prognosis; when framing ReSPECT conversations, consultant clinicians seek to minimise distress and maximise rapport and when involving a patient or a patient’s relatives in decision-making discussions, consultant clinicians are guided by their level of certainty about the patient’s illness trajectory.

          Conclusions

          The management of uncertainty about prognoses and about patients’ emotional reactions is central to secondary care consultant clinicians’ experiences of timing and conducting ReSPECT conversations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Barriers to Advance Care Planning at the End of Life: An Explanatory Systematic Review of Implementation Studies

          Context Advance Care Plans (ACPs) enable patients to discuss and negotiate their preferences for the future including treatment options at the end of life. Their implementation poses significant challenges. Objective To investigate barriers and facilitators to the implementation of ACPs, focusing on their workability and integration in clinical practice. Design An explanatory systematic review of qualitative implementation studies. Data sources Empirical studies that reported interventions designed to support ACP in healthcare. Web of Knowledge, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index and PubMed databases were searched. Methods Direct content analysis, using Normalization Process Theory, to identify and characterise relevant components of implementation processes. Results 13 papers identified from 166 abstracts were included in the review. Key factors facilitating implementation were: specially prepared staff utilizing a structured approach to interactions around ACPs. Barriers to implementation were competing demands of other work, the emotional and interactional nature of patient-professional interactions around ACPs, problems in sharing decisions and preferences within and between healthcare organizations. Conclusions This review demonstrates that doing more of the things that facilitate delivery of ACPs will not reduce the effects of those things that undermine them. Structured tools are only likely to be partially effective and the creation of a specialist cadre of ACP facilitators is unlikely to be a sustainable solution. The findings underscore both the challenge and need to find ways to routinely incorporate ACPs in clinical settings where multiple and competing demands impact on practice. Interventions most likely to meet with success are those that make elements of Advance Care Planning workable within complex and time pressured clinical workflows.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Resuscitation policy should focus on the patient, not the decision

            Zoë Fritz and colleagues discuss new approaches to resuscitation decisions that incorporate broader goals of care
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders: a systematic review of the barriers and facilitators of decision-making and implementation.

              Most people who die in hospital do so with a DNACPR order in place, these orders are the focus of considerable debate.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2020
                20 January 2020
                : 10
                : 1
                : e031633
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentWarwick Medical School , University of Warwick , Coventry, UK
                [2 ] departmentSchool of Medicine , Cardiff University , Cardiff, UK
                [3 ] departmentCritical Care Unit , University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust , Birmingham, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Karin Eli; Karin.Eli@ 123456warwick.ac.uk

                FG and A-MS are joint senior authors.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9132-8404
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5574-6059
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8236-3558
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3027-7548
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2123-2022
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-1438
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3338-8457
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-031633
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031633
                7044868
                31964663
                97c804c8-4173-4c78-90ec-e9d7299fc396
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 May 2019
                : 03 October 2019
                : 04 October 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: project number 15/15/09
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                1704
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                emergency care treatment planning,advance care planning,clinicians’ experiences,critical care,do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (dnacpr),decision making,qualitative research,recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (respect),uncertainty

                Comments

                Comment on this article