Experiences of using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in English general practice: a qualitative study among key primary health and social care professionals, patients, and their relatives.
Anne-Marie Slowther, Celia Janine Bernstein, Caroline Huxley, Jenny Harlock, Karin Eli, Claire Mann, Rachel Spencer, Jeremy Dale, Paramjit Gill, Hazel Blanchard, Martin Underwood, Frances Griffiths
{"title":"Experiences of using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in English general practice: a qualitative study among key primary health and social care professionals, patients, and their relatives.","authors":"Anne-Marie Slowther, Celia Janine Bernstein, Caroline Huxley, Jenny Harlock, Karin Eli, Claire Mann, Rachel Spencer, Jeremy Dale, Paramjit Gill, Hazel Blanchard, Martin Underwood, Frances Griffiths","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) has been implemented in many areas of the UK. It is unclear how ReSPECT is used in primary and community care settings.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate how the ReSPECT process is understood and experienced in the community by clinicians, social care staff, patients, their relatives, and identify obstacles and enablers to its implementation.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A qualitative interview and focus-group study across 13 general practices in three areas of England, between January and December 2022.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We interviewed GPs, specialist nurses, patients and relatives, and senior care home staff. Focus groups were conducted with community nurses, paramedics, and home care workers. Questions focused on understanding experiences of, and engagement with, ReSPECT. We analysed data using thematic analysis and a coding framework drawn from normalisation process theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants included <i>n</i> = 21 GPs, <i>n</i> = 5 specialist nurses, <i>n</i> = 9 patients, <i>n</i> = 7 relatives, <i>n</i> = 31 care home staff, <i>n</i> = 9 community nurses, <i>n</i> = 7 home care workers, and <i>n</i> = 2 paramedics. Participants supported ReSPECT, regarding it as a tool to facilitate person-centred care. GPs faced challenges in timing the introduction of ReSPECT and ensuring sufficient time to complete plans with patients. ReSPECT conversations worked best when there was a trusting relationship between the clinician and the patient (and their family). Anticipating future illness trajectories was difficult, yet plans were rarely reviewed. Interpreting recommendations in emergencies was challenging.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ReSPECT process has not translated as well as expected in the community setting. A revised approach is needed to address the challenges of implementation in this context.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e143-e152"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755578/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0248","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) has been implemented in many areas of the UK. It is unclear how ReSPECT is used in primary and community care settings.
Aim: To investigate how the ReSPECT process is understood and experienced in the community by clinicians, social care staff, patients, their relatives, and identify obstacles and enablers to its implementation.
Design and setting: A qualitative interview and focus-group study across 13 general practices in three areas of England, between January and December 2022.
Method: We interviewed GPs, specialist nurses, patients and relatives, and senior care home staff. Focus groups were conducted with community nurses, paramedics, and home care workers. Questions focused on understanding experiences of, and engagement with, ReSPECT. We analysed data using thematic analysis and a coding framework drawn from normalisation process theory.
Results: Participants included n = 21 GPs, n = 5 specialist nurses, n = 9 patients, n = 7 relatives, n = 31 care home staff, n = 9 community nurses, n = 7 home care workers, and n = 2 paramedics. Participants supported ReSPECT, regarding it as a tool to facilitate person-centred care. GPs faced challenges in timing the introduction of ReSPECT and ensuring sufficient time to complete plans with patients. ReSPECT conversations worked best when there was a trusting relationship between the clinician and the patient (and their family). Anticipating future illness trajectories was difficult, yet plans were rarely reviewed. Interpreting recommendations in emergencies was challenging.
Conclusion: The ReSPECT process has not translated as well as expected in the community setting. A revised approach is needed to address the challenges of implementation in this context.
期刊介绍：
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
