Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

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

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Eli, Karin, Hawkes, Claire, Fritz, Zoë , Griffin, James M., Huxley, Caroline J., Perkins, Gavin D., Wilkinson, Anna, Griffiths, Frances and Slowther, Anne-Marie (2021) Assessing the quality of ReSPECT documentation using an accountability for reasonableness framework. Resuscitation Plus, 7 . 100145. doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100145

[img]
Preview
PDF
RAP-Assessing-quality-ReSPECT-documentation-accountability-reasonableness-framework-2021.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 4.0.

Download (1444Kb) | Preview
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100145

Request Changes to record.

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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
SWORD Depositor: Library Publications Router
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Cardiac resuscitation -- Evaluation, Emergency medical services, CPR (First aid), Medical emergencies, Cardiac resuscitation -- Standards -- England
Journal or Publication Title: Resuscitation Plus
Publisher: Elsevier BV
ISSN: 2666-5204
Official Date: September 2021
Dates:
DateEvent
September 2021Published
29 July 2021Available
27 May 2021Accepted
Volume: 7
Article Number: 100145
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100145
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access
RIOXX Funder/Project Grant:
Project/Grant IDRIOXX Funder NameFunder ID
UNSPECIFIED[NIHR] National Institute for Health Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272
Related URLs:
  • http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-n...

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us