Article

Experiences and views of specialist registrars in geriatric medicine on 'do not attempt resuscitation' decisions: a sea of uncertainty?

Department of Medicine for Elderly, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.
QJM: monthly journal of the Association of Physicians (Impact Factor: 2.46). 11/2006; 99(10):691-700. DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcl096
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent cultural changes place doctors under increasing pressure to work with their patients to reach decisions about end-of-life care.
To survey the experience, practice and opinions of specialist registrars (SPRs) in geriatric medicine regarding 'do not attempt resuscitation' (DNAR) decisions.
Postal questionnaire survey.
A questionnaire was mailed to all members registered as trainees (n = 408) with the British Geriatrics Society in November 2003; a reminder was sent nine weeks later. Responses were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative (thematic) approaches.
Response rate was 62% (251/408), of whom 235 were still SpRs. Respondents played a major role in DNAR decision-making in their day-to-day clinical practice. Over a third of respondents did not feel that locally available guidelines were helpful. More than half sometimes disagreed with their consultants' decision, and a fifth were concerned about the possibility of complaints regarding the decisions they made. The majority felt uncomfortable discussing the issue with the patient, and were more likely to discuss the issue with relatives than with patients.
Further support and training may improve confidence and positive experiences in relation to DNAR decision-making among training-grade doctors in the UK.

0 Followers
 · 
67 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies from English acute, community and ambulance service Trusts for evidence of consistency and variation in implementation of national guidelines between healthcare organisations. Acute, community or ambulance National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England. 48 NHS Trusts. Freedom of information requests for adult DNACPR policies were sent to a random sample of Trusts. DNACPR policies were assessed on aspects identified from national guidelines including documentation, ethical and legal issues, decision-makers and involvement of others in DNACPR decisions as well as practical considerations such as validity, review and portability of decisions. Policies from 26 acute, 12 community and 10 ambulance service Trusts were reviewed. There was variation in terminology used (85% described documents as policies, 6% procedures and 8% guidelines). Only one quarter of Trusts used the recommended Resuscitation Council (UK) record form (or a modification of the form). There was variation in the terminology used which included DNAR, DNACPR, Not for CPR and AND (allow natural death). Accountability for DNACPR decisions rested with consultants at all acute Trusts and the most senior clinician at community Trusts. Most Trusts (74%) recommended discussion of decisions with a multidisciplinary team. Compliance with guidance requiring clinical staff to assess the patient for capacity and when to consult a lasting power of attorney or independent mental capacity advocate occurred less commonly. There was wide variation in the duration of time over which a DNACPR decision was considered valid as well as in the Trusts' approach to reviewing DNACPR decisions. The level of portability of DNACPR decisions between healthcare organisations was one of the greatest sources of variation. There is significant variation in the translation of the national DNACPR guidelines into English healthcare Trusts' DNACPR policies. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    BMJ Open 01/2015; 5(1):e006517. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006517 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current demographical trend towards an increasingly elderly population combined with advances in end of life care calls for a deeper understanding and common terminology about the concept of futility and additional influences on the resuscitation decision-making process. Such improved understanding of medical futility and other contributing factors when making DNACPR orders would help to ensure that clinicians make appropriate and thoughtful decisions on whether to recommend resuscitation in a patient. When estimating medical futility a physician should consider the chance of survival over different time periods and balance this against the chance of adverse outcomes. This information can then be offered to the patient (or the relatives) so that the patient's views about what is acceptable for the survival chance, length and type of survival can be factored into the eventual decision. Given the lack of evidence in this area and the poor level of patient knowledge and the emotive nature of the topic, it is not surprising that clinicians find such discussions hard.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 10/2014; 68(10). DOI:10.1111/ijcp.12476 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1QWrg14RWFrMGh Most people who die in hospital do so with a DNACPR order in place, these orders are the focus of considerable debate. To identify factors, facilitators and barriers involved in DNACPR decision-making and implementation. All study designs and interventions were eligible for inclusion. Studies were appraised guided by CASP tools. A qualitative analysis was undertaken. Data sources: Included electronic databases: Medline, Embase, ASSIA, Cochrane library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the King's Fund Library and scanning reference lists of included studies. Four key themes were identified: Considering the Decision-by senior physicians, nursing staff, patients and relatives. Key triggers included older age, co-morbidities, adverse prognostic factors, quality of life and the likelihood of success of CPR. Discussing the Decision-Levels, and combinations, of physician and nursing skills, patient understanding and family involvement produced various outcomes. Implementing the Decision-the lack of clear documentation resulted in a breakdown in communications within health teams. Staff knowledge and support of guidelines and local policies varied. Consequences of a DNACPR Decision-inadequate understanding by staff resulted in suboptimal care, and incorrect withdrawal of treatment. Significant variability was identified in DNACPR decision-making and implementation. The evidence base is weak but the absence of evidence does not indicate an absence of good practice. Issues are complex, and dependent on a number of factors. Misunderstandings and poor discussions can be overcome such as with an overall care plan to facilitate discussions and reduce negative impact of DNACPR orders on aspects of patient care.
    Resuscitation 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.016 · 3.96 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
33 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014