Dataset Information

Assessing the quality of ReSPECT documentation using an accountability for reasonableness framework.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, which supports the ReSPECT process, is designed to prompt clinicians to discuss wider emergency treatment options with patients and to structure the documentation of decision-making for greater transparency.

Methods

Following an accountability for reasonableness framework (AFR), we analysed 141 completed ReSPECT forms (versions 1.0 and 2.0), collected from six National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England during the early adoption of ReSPECT. Structured through an evaluation tool developed for this study, the analysis assessed the extent to which the records reflected consistency, transparency, and ethical justification of decision-making.

Results

Recommendations relating to CPR were consistently recorded on all forms and were contextualised within other treatment recommendations in most forms. The level of detail provided about treatment recommendations varied widely and reasons for treatment recommendations were rarely documented. Patient capacity, patient priorities and preferences, and the involvement of patients/relatives in ReSPECT conversations were recorded in some, but not all, forms. Clinicians almost never documented their weighing of potential burdens and benefits of treatments on the ReSPECT forms.

Conclusion

In most ReSPECT forms, CPR recommendations were captured alongside other treatment recommendations. However, ReSPECT form design and associated training should be modified to address inconsistencies in form completion. These modifications should emphasise the recording of patient values and preferences, assessment of patient capacity, and clinical reasoning processes, thereby putting patient/family involvement at the core of good clinical practice. Version 3.0 of ReSPECT responds to these issues.

SUBMITTER: Eli K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8340300 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth economic evaluations support the health care decision-making process by providing information on costs and consequences of health interventions. The quality of such studies is assessed by health economic evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments. At present, there is no instrument for measuring and improving the quality of such HEE quality appraisal instruments. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to establish a framework for assessing the quality of HEE quality appraisal instruments to support and improve their quality, and to apply this framework to those HEE quality appraisal instruments which have been subject to more scrutiny than others, in order to test the framework and to demonstrate the shortcomings of existing HEE quality appraisal instruments.MethodsTo develop the quality assessment framework for HEE quality appraisal instruments, the experiences of using appraisal tools for clinical guidelines are used. Based on a deductive iterative process, clinical guideline appraisal instruments identified through literature search are reviewed, consolidated, and adapted to produce the final quality assessment framework for HEE quality appraisal instruments.ResultsThe final quality assessment framework for HEE quality appraisal instruments consists of 36 items organized within 7 dimensions, each of which captures a specific domain of quality. Applying the quality assessment framework to four existing HEE quality appraisal instruments, it is found that these four quality appraisal instruments are of variable quality.ConclusionsThe framework described in this study should be regarded as a starting point for appraising the quality of HEE quality appraisal instruments. This framework can be used by HEE quality appraisal instrument producers to support and improve the quality and acceptance of existing and future HEE quality appraisal instruments. By applying this framework, users of HEE quality appraisal instruments can become aware of methodological deficiencies inherent in existing HEE quality appraisal instruments. These shortcomings of existing HEE quality appraisal instruments are illustrated by the pilot test.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of the Zero TB Indicator Framework as a tool for assessing the quality of tuberculosis (TB) case-finding, treatment and prevention services in Mongolia.SettingPrimary health centres, TB dispensaries, and surrounding communities in four districts of Mongolia.DesignThree retrospective cross-sectional cohort studies, and two longitudinal studies each individually nested in one of the cohort studies.Participants15 947 community members from high TB-risk populations; 8518 patients screened for TB in primary health centres and referred to dispensaries; 857 patients with index TB and 2352 household contacts.Primary and secondary outcome measures14 indicators of the quality of TB care defined by the Zero TB Indicator Framework and organised into three care cascades, evaluating community-based active case-finding, passive case-finding in health facilities and TB screening and prevention among close contacts; individual and health-system predictors of these indicators.ResultsThe cumulative proportions of participants receiving guideline-adherent care varied widely, from 96% for community-based active case-finding, to 79% for TB preventive therapy among household contacts, to only 67% for passive case-finding in primary health centres and TB dispensaries (range: 29%-80% across districts). The odds of patients completing active TB treatment decreased substantially with increasing age (aOR: 0.76 per decade, 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.83, p<0.001) and among men (aOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88, p=0.013). Contacts of older index patients also had lower odds of initiating and completing of TB preventive therapy (aOR: 0.60 per decade, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.93, p=0.022).ConclusionsThe Zero TB Framework provided a feasible and adaptable approach for using routine surveillance data to evaluate the quality of TB care and identify associated individual and health system factors. Future research should evaluate strategies for collecting process indicators more efficiently; gather qualitative data on explanations for low-quality care; and deploy quality improvement interventions.

Project description:IntroductionCountries are working hard to improve access to healthcare through Universal Healthcare Coverage. To genuinely address the problems of healthcare access, we need to recognize all the dimensions and complexities of healthcare access. Levesque's Conceptual Framework of Access to Health introduced in 2013 provides an interesting and comprehensive perspective through the five dimensions of access and the five abilities of the population to access healthcare. The objectives of this paper are to identify and analyze all empirical studies that applied Levesque's conceptual framework for access to healthcare and to explore the experiences and challenges of researchers who used this framework in developing tools for assessing access.MethodsA scoping review was conducted by searching through four databases, for studies citing Levesque et al. 2013 to select all empirical studies focusing on healthcare access that applied the framework. An initial 1838 documents underwent title screening, followed by abstract screening, and finally full text screening by two independent reviewers. Authors of studies identified from the scoping review were also interviewed.ResultsThere were 31 studies identified on healthcare access using the Levesque framework either a priori, to develop assessment tool/s (11 studies), or a posteriori, to organize and analyze collected data (20 studies). From the tools used, 147 unique questions on healthcare access were collected, 91 of these explored dimensions of access while 56 were about abilities to access. Those that were designed from the patient's perspective were 73%, while 20% were for health providers, and 7% were addressed to both. Interviews from seven out of the 26 authors, showed that while there were some challenges such as instances of categorization difficulty and unequal representation of dimensions and abilities, the overall experience was positive.ConclusionLevesque's framework has been successfully used in research that explored, assessed, and measured access in various healthcare services and settings. The framework allowed researchers to comprehensively assess the complex and dynamic process of access both in the health systems and the population contexts. There is still potential room for improvement of the framework, particularly the incorporation of time-related elements of access.