Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Discussion and documentation of future care: a before-and-after study examining the impact of an alternative approach to recording treatment decisions on advance care planning in an acute hospital
  1. Alexandra C Malyon1,
  2. Julia R Forman2,
  3. Jonathan P Fuld3 and
  4. Zoë Fritz4
  1. 1 Acute Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2 Applied Statistics and Epidemiology, Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
  3. 3 Respiratory and Acute Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
  4. 4 Acute Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Warwick University, UK
  1. Correspondence to Alexandra C Malyon, Box 148 Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Hill’s Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK; amalyon{at}nhs.net

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the development of the study protocol, conduct of this research, analysis of the data and writing and revision of this paper.

  • Funding The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and supported by the Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. ZF is grateful for support from the Wellcome Trust (grant number WT100557MA). ACM is grateful for support from a grant from the Burdett Trust for Nursing. This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0808–17218).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests ZF and JF, along with other colleagues, developed the Universal Form of Treatment Options. ZF was involved in the development of ReSPECT, and is on the Executive Committee of the Resuscitation Council(UK). The authors are not aware of any other existing conflicts of interest.

  • Patient consent Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.

  • Ethics approval Approval for this study was obtained from the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement The authors are happy to make anonymised data from this study available to other researchers on request through contacting the corresponding author.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the development of the study protocol, conduct of this research, analysis of the data and writing and revision of this paper.

  • Funding The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and supported by the Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. ZF is grateful for support from the Wellcome Trust (grant number WT100557MA). ACM is grateful for support from a grant from the Burdett Trust for Nursing. This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0808–17218).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests ZF and JF, along with other colleagues, developed the Universal Form of Treatment Options. ZF was involved in the development of ReSPECT, and is on the Executive Committee of the Resuscitation Council(UK). The authors are not aware of any other existing conflicts of interest.

  • Patient consent Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.

  • Ethics approval Approval for this study was obtained from the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement The authors are happy to make anonymised data from this study available to other researchers on request through contacting the corresponding author.

Request Permissions

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.