771 LET’S TALK ABOUT RESUS. DO WE DO IT? WHO DOES IT? WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES?

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Discussing preferences around cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is recommended to patients who wish to discuss this, or where there is foreseeable risk of life-threatening clinical deterioration. Our team felt that we discussed this routinely for our inpatients but wished to investigate how we did this, when we did this, why decisions were made and who led these discussions. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the electronic patient notes of 118 patients recently discharged from elderly medicine between February and November 2020 and recorded demographic details, co-morbidities and outcomes of discussions regarding resuscitation. Results 100/118 patients had a RESPECT form documenting preferences. Of these 100 patients, 97% had a DNACPR recommendation, 2 had a ‘for resuscitation’ recommendation and one was undecided. 69% of patients had their preferences recorded during the current admission. 43% of discussions were led by a tier 1/2 doctor. 21% of discussions were led by a tier 3 doctor. 23% of discussions were led by a consultant. It was unclear who had led the discussion 13% of the time. 29/97 patients had a DNACPR due to their wishes. 16/97 patients had a DNACPR based on clinical grounds that it would not succeed. 33/97 patients had a DNACPR on the grounds that burden outweighed risks and they had capacity In 19/97 patients the reason for DNACPR was not clearly documented. There were 6 discussions where there was distress or disagreement—all of the discussions resulted in DNACPR recommendation 1 patient had a DNACPR reversed during their admission and none were reversed afterwards. Conclusion Systematically discussing preferences around resuscitation is feasible and rarely results in distress. The majority of patients have a recommendation for DNACPR and discussions are led by ‘junior’ doctors.