Objectives Treatment escalation plans (TEPs) are vital in communicating a ceiling of care. However, many patients still deteriorate and die without a pre-established ceiling of care for attending clinicians to rely on. We aimed to increase the proportion of suitable patients that have TEPs in place in a rural district general hospital.
Methods We undertook three ‘Plan-Do-Study-Act’ (PDSA) cycles between 1 December 2016 and 9 June 2017. These cycles aimed to assess the problem, implement a solution and monitor its sustainability. We sampled all acute medical admissions at different time points, focusing on the acute medical unit. We identified patients requiring TEP forms using SupportiveandPalliative Care Indicators Tool. Stakeholders were surveyed during the project, and a process communication map was developed to understand the human interfaces that occur when producing a TEP.
Results We sampled a total of 323 patients (PDSA 1, n=128; PDSA 2, n=95; PDSA 3, n=100). Following implementation of a ‘talking to your doctor about treatment’ leaflet, the proportion of patients who did not have a TEP but required one fell from 43% (n=38, PDSA 1) to 27% (n=20, PDSA 3) then to 23% (n=77, PDSA 3) (CI 0.6631 to 39.917, p=0.028).
Conclusions This study highlights the challenges of TEP form completion. The impact of our intervention appeared to raise awareness of advanced care planning. The information contained in our leaflet could be distributed in more innovative ways to ensure patients unable to access textual information are able to receive this message.
- quality in health care
- adult palliative care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors GN and MS take responsibility for the integrity of data, overall design of the project and write up of the work, they also participated in data collection. JO, DP and SW were part of the conception and design of the project. AO, AG, AA, BR, DW, DP, GC, JW, MW, PS, RC, SN, DO and VC took part in study design and were responsible for data collection. GN and MS are joint first authors of this paper. SP aided with synthesis and interpretation of results and completion of the final paper. All authors were involved in drafting and approved this version of the work.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval This project was classified as Quality Improvement, therefore ethical approval was not required. Despite this, we registered and approved the project with our Hospital Research and Audit Department. We ensured all data we recorded were anonymised. For follow-up data (to identify what proportion of patients were deceased), we stored a list of patient numbers on a secure National Health Service computer. Once these patients were followed up, these data were deleted.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Presented at Part of this work was presented as a poster in the National Clinical Fellows conference 2017.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.