ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Are completed ReSPECT plans facilitating person-centred care? An evaluation of completed plans in UK general practice.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Improving the Use of Treatment Escalation Plans in Geriatric Medicine: A Quality Improvement Project.Cureus · 2025Article
- Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in a community setting: does it facilitate best interests decision-making?Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) includes agreed clinical recommendations for a person's care in a future emergency which have been informed by discussion of the person's preferences. Previous evaluation of ReSPECT plans in acute NHS hospitals found inconsistencies in recording patient's preferences and involvement in the plan, and infrequent justification for recommendations. Aim: To explore to what extent ReSPECT recommendations reflect individual preferences, as documented in the plan. Methods: ReSPECT plans of adults were collected from 11 General Practices in England. We adapted an evaluation tool used previously to analyse ReSPECT plans in acute settings. Free text sections for individual values/preferences and clinical recommendations were examined for clarity, consistency and congruency between them. Results: We retrieved 141 ReSPECT plans. Patients or those close to the patient were recorded as being consulted in most plans (94%). Individual preferences were completed in 57% of plans. Clinical recommendations reflected individual preferences by directly referencing the person and their preferences (31%), by being consistent with the documented preferences (30%), or by using the same wording as the preferences (6%). Conclusion: While many clinical recommendations reflect individual preferences, the preferences themselves are only recorded in just over half of ReSPECT plans. This is problematic, because the recording of individual preferences facilitates person-centred care, both directly by informing recommendations and indirectly when used to guide decision-making in situations not anticipated in the plan. Future training for clinicians should emphasize the need to document the personal values section of the plan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.