Comparative cost-effectiveness of termination of resuscitation rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest. METHODS: The economic analyses evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative TOR rules for OHCA from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. A systematic review was used to identify the different TOR rules included in the analyses. Data from the OHCAO outcomes registry, trial data and published literature were used to compare outcomes for the different rules identified. The economic analyses estimated discounted NHS and PSS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each TOR rule, based on which incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 33 TOR rules and the economic analyses assessed the performance of 29 of these TOR rules plus current practice. The most cost-effective strategies were the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £8,111), the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium 2 (KOC 2) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £17,548), and the universal Basic Life Support (BLS) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £19,498,216). The KOC 2 TOR rule was cost-effective at the established cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The KOC 2 rule is the most cost-effective at established cost-effectiveness thresholds used to inform health care decision-making in the UK. Further research on economic implications of TOR rules is warranted to support constructive discussion on implementing TOR rules.

Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.

Background: Health economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from an antenatal or newborn screening programme, driven by multiple benefits and harms, are justifiable. It is not known what benefits and harms have been adopted by economic evaluations assessing these programmes and whether they omit benefits and harms considered important to relevant stakeholders. Objectives: (1) To identify the benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments in this area, and to assess how they have been measured and valued; (2) to identify attributes or relevance to stakeholders that ought to be considered in future economic assessments; and (3) to make recommendations about the benefits and harms that should be considered by these studies. Design: Mixed methods combining systematic review and qualitative work. Systematic review methods: We searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021 using all major electronic databases. Economic evaluations of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in one or more Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries were considered eligible. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis and constructed a thematic framework. Qualitative methods: We conducted a meta-ethnography of the existing literature on newborn screening experiences, a secondary analysis of existing individual interviews related to antenatal or newborn screening or living with screened-for conditions, and a thematic analysis of primary data collected with stakeholders about their experiences with screening. Results: The literature searches identified 52,244 articles and reports, and 336 unique studies were included. Thematic framework resulted in seven themes: (1) diagnosis of screened for condition, (2) life-years and health status adjustments, (3) treatment, (4) long-term costs, (5) overdiagnosis, (6) pregnancy loss and (7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened-for condition (115, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90, 37.2%) and treatment (88, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Long-term costs, overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored. The wide-reaching family implications of screening were considered important to stakeholders. We observed good overlap between the thematic framework and the qualitative evidence. Limitations: Dual data extraction within the systematic literature review was not feasible due to the large number of studies included. It was difficult to recruit healthcare professionals in the stakeholder's interviews. Conclusions: There is no consistency in the selection of benefits and harms used in health economic assessments in this area, suggesting that additional methods guidance is needed. Our proposed thematic framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165236. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127489) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Every year the NHS offers pregnant women screening tests to assess the chances of them or their unborn baby having or developing a health condition. It also offers screening tests for newborn babies to look for a range of health conditions. The implementation of screening programmes and the care for women and babies require many resources and funding for the NHS, so it is important that screening programmes represent good value for money. This means that the amount of money the NHS spends on a programme is justified by the amount of benefit that the programme gives. We wanted to see whether researchers consider all the important benefits and harms associated with screening of pregnant women and newborn babies when calculating value for money. To do this, we searched all studies available in developed countries to identify what benefits and harms they considered. We also considered the views of parents and healthcare professionals on the benefits and harms screening that creates for families and wider society. We found that the identification of benefits and harms of screening is complex because screening results affect a range of people (mother­baby, parents, extended family and wider society). Researchers calculating the value for money of screening programmes have, to date, concentrated on a narrow range of benefits and harms and ignored many factors that are important to people affected by screening results. From our discussions with parents and healthcare professionals, we found that wider impacts on families are an important consideration. Only one study we looked at considered wider impacts on families. Our work also found that parent's ability to recognise, absorb and apply new information to understand their child's screening results or condition is important. Healthcare professionals involve in screening should consider this when supporting families of children with a condition. We have created a list for researchers to identify the benefits and harms that are important to include in future studies. We have also identified different ways researchers can value these benefits and harms, so they are incorporated into their studies in a meaningful way.

Patient and relative experiences of the ReSPECT process in the community: an interview-based study.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was launched in the UK in 2016. ReSPECT is designed to facilitate meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals, patients, and their relatives about preferences for treatment in future emergencies; however, no study has investigated patients' and relatives' experiences of ReSPECT in the community. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients and relatives in community settings experience the ReSPECT process and engage with the completed form. METHODS: Patients who had a ReSPECT form were identified through general practice surgeries in three areas in England; either patients or their relatives (where patients lacked capacity) were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, focusing on the participants' understandings and experiences of the ReSPECT process and form. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen interviews took place (six with patients, four with relatives, three with patient and relative pairs). Four themes were developed: (1) ReSPECT records a patient's wishes, but is entangled in wider relationships; (2) healthcare professionals' framings of ReSPECT influence patients' and relatives' experiences; (3) patients and relatives perceive ReSPECT as a do-not-resuscitate or end-of-life form; (4) patients' and relatives' relationships with the ReSPECT form as a material object vary widely. Patients valued the opportunity to express their wishes and conceptualised ReSPECT as a process of caring for themselves and for their family members' emotional wellbeing. Participants who described their ReSPECT experiences positively said healthcare professionals clearly explained the ReSPECT process and form, allocated sufficient time for an open discussion of patients' preferences, and provided empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations. In cases where participants said healthcare professionals did not provide clear explanations or did not engage them in a conversation, experiences ranged from confusion about the form and how it would be used to lingering feelings of worry, upset, or being burdened with responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: When ReSPECT conversations involved an open discussion of patients' preferences, clear information about the ReSPECT process, and empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations, working with a healthcare professional to co-develop a record of treatment preferences and recommendations could be an empowering experience, providing patients and relatives with peace of mind.

Route of drug administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARAMEDIC-3).

Aims: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial evaluates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intraosseous first strategy, compared with an intravenous first strategy, for drug administration in adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: PARAMEDIC-3 is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open-label, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 15,000 patients across English and Welsh ambulance services. Adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are individually randomised to an intraosseous access first strategy or intravenous access first strategy in a 1:1 ratio through an opaque, sealed envelope system. The randomised allocation determines the route used for the first two attempts at vascular access. Participants are initially enrolled under a deferred consent model.The primary clinical-effectiveness outcome is survival at 30-days. Secondary outcomes include return of spontaneous circulation, neurological functional outcome, and health-related quality of life. Participants are followed-up to six-months following cardiac arrest. The primary health economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial will provide key information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registration: ISRCTN14223494, registered 16/08/2021, prospectively registered.

GPs' views on emergency care treatment plans: an online survey.

BACKGROUND: A holistic approach to emergency care treatment planning is needed to ensure that patients' preferences are considered should their clinical condition deteriorate. To address this, emergency care and treatment plans (ECTPs) have been introduced. Little is known about their use in general practice. AIM: To find out GPs' experiences of, and views on, using ECTPs. DESIGN & SETTING: Online survey of GPs practising in England. METHOD: A total of 841 GPs were surveyed using the monthly online survey provided by medeConnect, a market research company. RESULTS: Forty-one per cent of responders' practices used Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plans for ECTP, 8% used other ECTPs, and 51% used Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms. GPs were the predominant professional group completing ECTPs in the community. There was broad support for a wider range of community-based health and social care professionals being able to complete ECTPs. There was no system for reviewing ECTPs in 20% of responders' practices. When compared with using a DNACPR form, GPs using a ReSPECT form for ECTP were more comfortable having conversations about emergency care treatment with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 2.69) and family members (OR =1.85, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.87). CONCLUSION: The potential benefits and challenges of widening the pool of health and social care professionals initiating and/or completing the ECTP process needs consideration. ReSPECT plans appear to make GPs more comfortable with ECTP discussions, supporting their implementation. Practice-based systems for reviewing ECTP decisions should be strengthened.

Moral distress among intensive care unit professions in the UK: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the experience of moral distress among intensive care unit (ICU) professionals in the UK. DESIGN: Mixed methods: validated quantitative measure of moral distress followed by purposive sample of respondents who underwent semistructured interviews. SETTING: Four ICUs of varying sizes and specialty facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals working in ICU. RESULTS: 227 questionnaires were returned and 15 interviews performed. Moral distress occurred across all ICUs and professional demographics. It was most commonly related to providing care perceived as futile or against the patient's wishes/interests, followed by resource constraints compromising care. Moral distress score was independently influenced by profession (p=0.02) (nurses 117.0 vs doctors 78.0). A lack of agency was central to moral distress and its negative experience could lead to withdrawal from engaging with patients/families. One-third indicated their intention to leave their current post due to moral distress and this was greater among nurses than doctors (37.0% vs 15.0%). Moral distress was independently associated with an intention to leave their current post (p<0.0001) and a previous post (p=0.001). Participants described a range of individualised coping strategies tailored to the situations faced. The most common and highly valued strategies were informal and relied on working within a supportive environment along with a close-knit team, although participants acknowledged there was a role for structured and formalised intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Moral distress is widespread among UK ICU professionals and can have an important negative impact on patient care, professional wellbeing and staff retention, a particularly concerning finding as this study was performed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moral distress due to resource-related issues is more severe than comparable studies in North America. Interventions to support professionals should recognise the individualistic nature of coping with moral distress. The value of close-knit teams and supportive environments has implications for how intensive care services are organised.

Investigating the impact of brief training in decision-making on treatment escalation to intensive care using objective structured clinical examination-style scenarios.

Background: The decision to admit patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) is complex. Structuring the decision-making process may be beneficial to patients and decision-makers alike. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and impact of a brief training intervention on ICU treatment escalation decisions using the Warwick model- a structured decision-making framework for treatment escalation decisions. Methods: Treatment escalation decisions were assessed using Objective Structured Clinical Examination-style scenarios. Participants were ICU and anaesthetic registrars with experience of making ICU admission decisions. Participants completed one scenario, followed by training with the decision-making framework and subsequently a second scenario. Decision-making data was collected using checklists, note entries and post-scenario questionnaires. Results: Twelve participants were enrolled. Brief decision-making training was successfully delivered during the normal ICU working day. Following training participants demonstrated greater evidence of balancing the burdens and benefits of treatment escalation. On visual analogue scales of 0-10, participants felt better trained to make treatment escalation decisions (4.9 vs 6.8, p = 0.017) and felt their decision-making was more structured (4.7 vs 8.1, p = 0.017).Overall, participants provided positive feedback and reported feeling more prepared for the task of making treatment escalation decisions. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a brief training intervention is a feasible way to improve the decision-making process by improving decision-making structure, reasoning and documentation. Training was implemented successfully, acceptable to participants and participants were able to apply their learning. Further studies of regional and national cohorts are needed to determine if training benefit is sustained and generalisable.

The experiences of adult patients, families, and healthcare professionals of CPR decision-making conversations in the United Kingdom: A qualitative systematic review.

Aim: To conduct a qualitative systematic review on the experiences of patients, families, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) of CPR decision-making conversations in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: The databases PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched. Studies published from 1 January 2012 describing experiences of CPR decision-making conversations in the UK were included. Included studies were critically appraised using the CASP tool. Thematic synthesis was conducted. Results: From 684 papers identified, ten studies were included. Four key themes were identified:(i) Initiation of conversations - Key prompts for the discussion included clinical deterioration and poor prognosis. There are different perspectives about who should initiate conversations.(ii) Involvement of patients and families - HCPs were reluctant to involve patients who they thought would become distressed by the conversation, while patients varied in their desire to be involved. Patients wanted family support while HCPs viewed families as potential sources of conflict.(iii) Influences on the content of conversations - Location, context, HCPs' attitudes and emotions, and uncertainty of prognosis influenced the content of conversations.(iv) Conversation outcomes - Range of outcomes included emotional distress, sense of relief and value, disagreements, and incomplete conversations. Conclusions: There is inconsistency in how these conversations occur, patients' desire to be involved, and between patients' and HCPs' views on the role of families in these conversations. CPR discussions raise ethical challenges for HCPs. HCPs need training and pastoral support in conducting CPR discussions. Patients and families need education on CPR recommendations and support after discussions.

Evaluating interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical practice: a review of the literature and reflections on the challenges posed.

Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing acknowledgement of the importance of recognising the ethical dimension of clinical decision-making. Medical professional regulatory authorities in some countries now include ethical knowledge and practice in their required competencies for undergraduate and post graduate medical training. Educational interventions and clinical ethics support services have been developed to support and improve ethical decision making in clinical practice, but research evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions has been limited. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature on measures or models of evaluation used to assess the impact of interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical care. We identified a range of measures to evaluate educational interventions, and one tool used to evaluate a clinical ethics support intervention. Most measures did not evaluate the key impact of interest, that is the quality of ethical decision making in real-world clinical practice. We describe the results of our review and reflect on the challenges of assessing ethical decision making in clinical practice that face both developers of educational and support interventions and the regulatory organisations that set and assess competency standards.

Induction of labour for predicted macrosomia: study protocol for the 'Big Baby' randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Large-for-gestational age (LGA) fetuses have an increased risk of shoulder dystocia. This can lead to adverse neonatal outcomes and death. Early induction of labour in women with a fetus suspected to be macrosomic may mitigate the risk of shoulder dystocia. The Big Baby Trial aims to find if induction of labour at 38+0-38+4 weeks' gestation, in pregnancies with suspected LGA fetuses, reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Big Baby Trial is a multicentre, prospective, individually randomised controlled trial of induction of labour at 38+0 to 38+4 weeks' gestation vs standard care as per each hospital trust (median gestation of delivery 39+4) among women whose fetuses have an estimated fetal weight >90th customised centile according to ultrasound scan at 35+0 to 38+0 weeks' gestation. There is a parallel cohort study for women who decline randomisation because they opt for induction, expectant management or caesarean section. Up to 4000 women will be recruited and randomised to induction of labour or to standard care. The primary outcome is the incidence of shoulder dystocia; assessed by an independent expert group, blind to treatment allocation, from delivery records. Secondary outcomes include birth trauma, fractures, haemorrhage, caesarean section rate and length of inpatient stay. The main trial is ongoing, following an internal pilot study. A qualitative reporting, health economic evaluation and parallel process evaluation are included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received a favourable opinion from the South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Health Research Authority on 23/03/2018 (IRAS project ID 229163). Study results will be reported in the National Institute for Health Research journal library and published in an open access peer-reviewed journal. We will plan dissemination events for key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18229892.

Benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes in OECD countries: A systematic review of 336 articles and reports.

BACKGROUND: Health economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from a screening programme, driven by multiple complex benefits and harms, are justifiable. We systematically identified the benefits and harms incorporated within economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes. METHODS: For this systematic review and thematic analysis, we searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021. Studies that included an economic evaluation of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in an OECD country were eligible. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis, and illustrated a thematic framework. (Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42020165236). FINDINGS: The searches identified 52,244 articles and reports and 336 (242 antenatal and 95 newborn) were included. Eighty-six subthemes grouped into seven themes were identified: 1) diagnosis of screened for condition, 2) life years and health status adjustments, 3) treatment, 4) long-term costs, 5) overdiagnosis, 6) pregnancy loss, and 7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened for condition (115 studies, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90 studies, 37.2%) and treatment (88 studies, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored. INTERPRETATION: Our proposed framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes, to prevent exclusion of important potential benefits and harms.

Implementation of ReSPECT in acute hospitals: A retrospective observational study.

AIMS: To evaluate, in UK acute hospitals, the early implementation of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT), which embeds cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recommendations within wider emergency treatment plans. To understand for whom and how the process was being used and the quality of form completion. METHODS: A retrospective observational study evaluating emergency care and treatment planning approaches used in acute UK hospitals (2015-2019), and in six English hospital trusts the extent of ReSPECT use, patient characteristics and completion quality in a sample 3000 patient case notes. RESULTS: The use of stand-alone Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation forms fell from 133/186 hospitals in 2015 to 64/186 in 2019 (a 38% absolute reduction). ReSPECT accounted for 52% (36/69) of changes. In the six sites, ReSPECT was used for approximately 20% of patients (range 6%-41%). They tended to be older, to have had an emergency medical admission, to have cognitive impairment and a lower predicted 10 year survival. Most (653/706 (92%)) included a 'not for attempted resuscitation' recommendation 551/706 (78%) had at least one other treatment recommendation. Capacity was not recorded on 13% (95/706) of forms; 11% (79/706) did not record patient/family involvement. CONCLUSIONS: ReSPECT use accounts for 52% of the change, observed between 2015 and 2019, from using standalone DNACPR forms to approaches embedding DNACPR decisions within in wider emergency care plans in NHS hospitals in the UK. Whilst recommendations include other emergencies most still tend to focus on recommendations relating to CPR. Completion of ReSPECT forms requires improvement. STUDY REGISTRATION: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11112933.

Why are some ReSPECT conversations left incomplete? A qualitative case study analysis.

Background: As an emergency care and treatment planning process (ECTP), a key feature of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is the engagement of patients and/or their representatives in conversations about treatment options including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, qualitative research suggests that some ReSPECT conversations lead to partial or no decision-making about treatment recommendations. This paper explores why some ReSPECT conversations are left incomplete. Methods: Drawing on observation and interview data collected in four National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England, this paper offers an in-depth exploration of six case studies in which ReSPECT conversations were incomplete. Using thematic analysis, we triangulate fieldnote data documenting these conversations with interview data in which the doctors who conducted these conversations shared their perceptions and reflected on their decision-making processes. Results: We identified two themes, both focused on 'mismatch': (1) Mismatch between the doctor's clinical priorities and the patient's/family's immediate needs; and (2) mismatch between the doctor's conversation scripts, which included patient autonomy, the feasibility of CPR, and what medicine can and should do to prolong a patient's life, and the patient's/family's understandings of these concepts. Conclusions: This case study analysis of six ReSPECT conversations found that mismatch between doctors' priorities and understandings and those of patients and/or their relatives led to incomplete ReSPECT conversations. Future research should explore methods to overcome these mismatches.

Caring in the silences: why physicians and surgeons do not discuss emergency care and treatment planning with their patients - an analysis of hospital-based ethnographic case studies in England.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing emphasis on integrating emergency care and treatment planning (ECTP) into routine medical practice, clinicians continue to delay or avoid ECTP conversations with patients. However, little is known about the clinical logics underlying barriers to ECTP conversations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop an ethnographic account of how and why clinicians defer and avoid ECTP conversations, and how they rationalise these decisions as they happen. DESIGN: A multisited ethnographic study. SETTING: Medical, orthopaedic and surgical wards in hospitals within four acute National Health Service trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-four doctors were formally observed and 32 formally interviewed. Following an ethnographic case study approach, six cases were selected for in-depth analysis. ANALYSIS: Fieldnote data were triangulated with interview data, to develop a 'thick description' of each case. Using a conceptual framework of care, the analysis highlighted the clinical logics underlying these cases. RESULTS: The deferral or avoidance of ECTP conversations was driven by concerns over caring well, with clinicians attempting to optimise both medical and bedside practice. Conducting an ECTP conversation carefully meant attending to patients' and relatives' emotions and committing sufficient time for an in-depth discussion. However, conversation plans were often disrupted by issues related to timing and time constraints, leading doctors to defer these conversations, sometimes indefinitely. Additionally, whereas surgeons and geriatricians deferred conversations because they did not have the time to offer detailed discussions, emergency and acute medicine clinicians deferred conversations because the high-turnover ward environment, combined with patients' acute conditions, meant triaging conversations to those most in need. CONCLUSION: Overcoming barriers to ECTP conversations is not simply a matter of enhancing training or hospital policies, but of promoting good conversational practices that take into account the affordances of hospital time and space, as well as clinicians' understandings of caring well.

Importation of plasma and use of apheresis platelets as risk reduction measures for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: The SaBTO review.

Following recognition that blood, blood components, tissues and organs donated by infected donors could transmit infectious prions causing variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), several risk reduction measures were introduced in the UK. The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) established a working group to review the measures in place. Factors considered included: ethical issues around the current provisions and potential changes; operational issues for blood establishments and hospitals; a review from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) showing the downward trend in the estimated number of future cases of vCJD; and cost-effectiveness. The working group recommended that the current vCJD risk reduction measures for individuals born after 1995 or with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) could be withdrawn. After consultation with stakeholders, SaBTO accepted these proposals which allow more equal provision of components, less operational complexity and risk, and more resources to be deployed elsewhere in the NHS. The potential saving on plasma will be £500 m and moving to using pooled platelets in additive solution for all recipients will bring potential savings of £280 m over the next 50 to 60 years. There could be small number of additional clinical cases of vCJD: 1-2 (<1-14; 95% CI) from plasma and 3-4 (<1 to 45; 95% CI) from platelets. Local and national guidelines will still be applied for managing individual conditions. UK Ministers for Health accepted SaBTO's recommendations on 9 Sept 2019 and implementation began immediately. This paper describes the review and rationale leading to these recommendations.

Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of palliative care to children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: a qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To understand healthcare system facilitators and barriers to the delivery of palliative care for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their family members. DESIGN: Focus groups with children's palliative care professionals. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Four regions of England (West Midlands, South West, Yorkshire and Humber, and London) from December 2017 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses and allied healthcare professionals) working in children's palliative care services. FINDINGS: A total of 71 healthcare professionals participated in the focus groups. Three overarching themes were identified which influenced whether and when children were referred to and started to receive palliative care: (1) the unspoken background of clinical uncertainty which often delayed palliative care; (2) the cultural 'collusion of immortality', where conversations about the possibility of dying can be avoided or deferred; and (3) the role of paediatric palliative care teams in 'illuminating the blind spot' of palliative care as well as providing hands-on care. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care is a holistic approach to care that focuses on quality of life for people living with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions that can be delivered alongside active treatment. There is a need to prioritise and integrate this into healthcare services for children more effectively if improvements in care are to be realised. While more specialist paediatric palliative care services are needed, the unspoken background of clinical uncertainty needs to be addressed together with the collusion of immortality within healthcare culture and organisations.

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

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.

General practitioners' experiences of emergency care and treatment planning in England: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Care and Treatment Plans are recommended for all primary care patients in the United Kingdom who are expected to experience deterioration of their health. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was developed to integrate resuscitation decisions with discussions about wider goals of care. It summarises treatment recommendations discussed and agreed between patients and their clinicians for a future emergency situation and was designed to meet the needs of different care settings. Our aim is to explore GPs' experiences of using ReSPECT and how it transfers across the primary care and secondary care interface. METHODS: We conducted five focus groups with GPs in areas being served by hospitals in England that have implemented ReSPECT. Participants were asked about their experience of ReSPECT, how they initiate ReSPECT-type conversations, and their experiences of ReSPECT-type recommendations being communicated across primary and secondary care. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: GPs conceptualise ReSPECT as an end of life planning document, which is best completed in primary care. As an end of life care document, completing ReSPECT is an emotional process and conversations are shaped by what a 'good death' is thought to be. ReSPECT recommendations are not always communicated or transferable across care settings. A focus on the patient's preferences around death, and GPs' lack of specialist knowledge, could be a barrier to completion of ReSPECT that is transferable to acute settings. CONCLUSION: Conceptualising ReSPECT as an end of life care document suggests a difference in how general practitioners understand ReSPECT from its designers. This impacts on the transferability of ReSPECT recommendations to the hospital setting.