Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38632508›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Patient and relative experiences of the ReSPECT process in the community: an interview-based study.

Karin Eli, Jenny Harlock, Caroline J Huxley, Celia Bernstein, Claire Mann, Rachel Spencer, Frances Griffiths, Anne-Marie Slowther

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Karin EliWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. karin.eli@warwick.ac.uk.
Jenny HarlockWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Caroline J HuxleyWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Celia BernsteinWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Claire MannWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Rachel SpencerWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Frances GriffithsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Anne-Marie SlowtherWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research - Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (NIHR HS&DR) NIHR131316
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was launched in the UK in 2016. ReSPECT is designed to facilitate meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals, patients, and their relatives about preferences for treatment in future emergencies; however, no study has investigated patients' and relatives' experiences of ReSPECT in the community.

objectivesTo explore how patients and relatives in community settings experience the ReSPECT process and engage with the completed form.

methodsPatients who had a ReSPECT form were identified through general practice surgeries in three areas in England; either patients or their relatives (where patients lacked capacity) were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, focusing on the participants' understandings and experiences of the ReSPECT process and form. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

resultsThirteen interviews took place (six with patients, four with relatives, three with patient and relative pairs). Four themes were developed: (1) ReSPECT records a patient's wishes, but is entangled in wider relationships; (2) healthcare professionals' framings of ReSPECT influence patients' and relatives' experiences; (3) patients and relatives perceive ReSPECT as a do-not-resuscitate or end-of-life form; (4) patients' and relatives' relationships with the ReSPECT form as a material object vary widely. Patients valued the opportunity to express their wishes and conceptualised ReSPECT as a process of caring for themselves and for their family members' emotional wellbeing. Participants who described their ReSPECT experiences positively said healthcare professionals clearly explained the ReSPECT process and form, allocated sufficient time for an open discussion of patients' preferences, and provided empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations. In cases where participants said healthcare professionals did not provide clear explanations or did not engage them in a conversation, experiences ranged from confusion about the form and how it would be used to lingering feelings of worry, upset, or being burdened with responsibility.

conclusionsWhen ReSPECT conversations involved an open discussion of patients' preferences, clear information about the ReSPECT process, and empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations, working with a healthcare professional to co-develop a record of treatment preferences and recommendations could be an empowering experience, providing patients and relatives with peace of mind.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesPatientsEmergency TreatmentHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchEmergency care and treatment planning (ECTP)Patient and relative experiencesQualitative researchThe recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT)

Identifiers

PMID38632508
PMCPMC11022317

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.