Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34167478›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

General practitioners' experiences of emergency care and treatment planning in England: a focus group study.

Caroline J Huxley, Karin Eli, Claire A Hawkes, Gavin D Perkins, Rob George, Frances Griffiths, Anne-Marie Slowther

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Caroline J HuxleyWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Karin EliWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Claire A HawkesWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Gavin D PerkinsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Rob GeorgeSt Christopher's Hospice, 51-59 Lawrie Park Road, London, SE26 6DZ, UK.
Frances GriffithsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. f.e.griffiths@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4173-1438
Anne-Marie SlowtherWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme 15/15/09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency Care and Treatment Plans are recommended for all primary care patients in the United Kingdom who are expected to experience deterioration of their health. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was developed to integrate resuscitation decisions with discussions about wider goals of care. It summarises treatment recommendations discussed and agreed between patients and their clinicians for a future emergency situation and was designed to meet the needs of different care settings. Our aim is to explore GPs' experiences of using ReSPECT and how it transfers across the primary care and secondary care interface.

methodsWe conducted five focus groups with GPs in areas being served by hospitals in England that have implemented ReSPECT. Participants were asked about their experience of ReSPECT, how they initiate ReSPECT-type conversations, and their experiences of ReSPECT-type recommendations being communicated across primary and secondary care. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis.

resultsGPs conceptualise ReSPECT as an end of life planning document, which is best completed in primary care. As an end of life care document, completing ReSPECT is an emotional process and conversations are shaped by what a 'good death' is thought to be. ReSPECT recommendations are not always communicated or transferable across care settings. A focus on the patient's preferences around death, and GPs' lack of specialist knowledge, could be a barrier to completion of ReSPECT that is transferable to acute settings.

conclusionConceptualising ReSPECT as an end of life care document suggests a difference in how general practitioners understand ReSPECT from its designers. This impacts on the transferability of ReSPECT recommendations to the hospital setting.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelEnglandFocus GroupsHumansPatient Care PlanningQualitative ResearchDNACPREmergency care and treatment plansEnd of life carePrimary health careRecommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and TreatmentReSPECT

Identifiers

PMID34167478
PMCPMC8224258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.