Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decisions Research Articles

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision-making process: scoping review

ObjectivesTo conduct a scoping review to explore the evidence of the process of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search and review of articles from 1...

Family Medicine Residents' Knowledge and Attitudes About End-of-Life Care in Taif City, Saudi Arabia.

Background End-of-life care is essential for individuals with advanced illness and their families, providing comfort, symptom control, and dignity in the final year of life. Additionally, physician competence requires the ability to communicate, make decisions, and create relationships in end-of-life care. This study assesses family physicians' knowledge and attitude regarding end-of-life care in Taif, Saudi Arabia. Methods Thisdescriptive cross-sectional study conducted between October and November 2021 assessed the knowledge and attitudes of 163 family physicians in Taif City, Saudi Arabia, regarding end-of-life care. Using a convenient sampling technique, an adapted and validated questionnaire was administered electronically, collecting sociodemographic information and assessing participants' knowledge and attitudes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics in Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS, version 28) (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY). Results Findings included that 41.1% of residents believed the patient and family should be informed about diagnoses and prognoses in advanced diseases. At the same time, attitudes varied, with 45.4% agreeing that discussing such information could lead to patient depression and 42.9% believing it held no privilege for patients. Additionally, 57.7% recognized that grief reactions would occur, but patients would eventually adjust, and 44.8% agreed that discussing diagnoses would decrease patient anxiety. However, limited awareness of advance directives was evident, with 12.3% reporting being well aware and 45.4% having never heard of them. There was uncertainty and hesitancy regarding Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions, with 39.9% being well aware and 46% having heard of it without a strong understanding. Conclusion The findings revealed a mixed landscape, with physicians demonstrating awareness of the importance of transparent communication but needing more knowledge in areas such as advance directives and complex decision-making. The study highlighted the need for targeted education to address these gaps and promote a more informed and consistent approach to end-of-life care.

What's the Harm in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation?

In clinical ethics, there remains a great deal of uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of attempting cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for certain patients. Although the issue continues to receive ample attention and various frameworks have been proposed for navigating such cases, most discussions draw heavily on the notion of harm as a central consideration. In the following, I use emerging philosophical literature on the notion of harm to argue that the ambiguities and disagreement about harm create important and oft-overlooked challenges for the ethics of CPR. I begin by elucidating the standard account of harm, called the Counterfactual Comparative Account (CCA). I then show that three challenges to the CCA-preemptive harms, the harm of death, and non-experiential harms-are particularly salient when assessing potential harms for candidates of CPR and likely impact-related decision-making and communication. I extend this argument to explore how the ambiguities of harm might extend to other realms of clinical decision-making, such as the use and limitations of life-sustaining treatments. To address these challenges, I propose two strategies for identifying and minimizing the impact of such uncertainty: first, clinicians and ethicists ought to promote pluralistic conversations that account for different understandings of harm; second, they ought to invoke harm-independent considerations when discussing the ethics of CPR in order to reflect the nuances of such conversations. These strategies, coupled with a richer philosophical understanding of harm, promise to help clinicians and ethicists navigate the prevalent and difficult cases involving patient resuscitation and many other harm-based decisions in the clinical setting.

Preparing for end-of-life: learning from Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decision-making during COVID-19.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made differently. This included more prominent roles for specialties such as psychiatry and doctors in training. Concerns about inappropriate DNAR decisions led to anxiety for doctors, patients and the public. Positive outcomes may have included earlier and better-quality end-of life-discussions. However, COVID-19 exposed the need for support, training and guidance in this area for all doctors. It also highlighted the importance of effective public education about advanced care planning.

Amputation and advance care plans: An observational study exploring decision making and long-term outcomes in a vascular centre.

Half of those undergoing major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease die within 1year. Advance care planning reduces days in hospital and increases the chance of dying in a preferred place. To investigate the prevalence and content of advance care planning for people having a lower limb amputation due to acute or chronic limb-threatening ischaemia or diabetes. Secondary aims were to explore its association with mortality, and length of hospital stay. A retrospective observational cohort study. The intervention was advance care planning. Patients admitted to the South West England Major Arterial Centre between 1 January 2019 and 1 January 2021 who received unilateral or bilateral below, above, or through knee amputation due to acute or chronic limb-threatening ischaemia or diabetes. 116 patients were included in the study. 20.7% (n = 24) died within 1year. 40.5% (n = 47) had an advance care planning discussion of which all included cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions with few exploring other options. Patients who were more likely to have advance care planning discussions were ≥75years (aOR = 5.58, 95%CI 1.56-20.0), female (aOR = 3.24, 95%CI 1.21-8.69), and had multimorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5, aOR = 2.97, 95%CI 1.11-7.92). Discussions occurred more often in the emergency pathway and were predominantly initiated by physicians. Advance care planning was associated with increased mortality (aHR = 2.63, 95%CI 1.01, 5.02) and longer hospital stay (aHR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.32-0.83). Despite a high risk of death for all patients in the months following amputation, advance care planning occurred in fewer than half of people and mostly focused on resuscitation.

Coding the Dead: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Organ Preservation

Background There is lack of consensus in the bioethics literature regarding the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for organ-preserving purposes. In this study, we assessed the perspectives of clinicians in critical care settings to better inform donor management policy and practice. Methods An online anonymous survey of members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine that presented various scenarios about CPR for organ preservation. Results The email was sent to 10,340 members. It was opened by 5,416 (52%) of members and 405 members (4%) completed the survey with few missing data. A majority of respondents (81%) answered that donation status should not influence whether CPR is performed on an imminently dying patient. There was very strong agreement (>85%) that 1) CPR should be performed on a registered donor who experiences a cardiac arrest with an unknown code status before death by neurological criteria (DNC) and 2) CPR should be performed if the patient is not a registered donor and experiences cardiac arrest but the surrogate/power of attorney (POA) has not yet been approached regarding code status and donation. When a registered donor with a DNR order experiences cardiac arrest before DNC, 98% of respondents would not perform CPR. However, after DNC, respondents were evenly divided on whether they would (49%) or would not (51%) perform CPR on a registered donor with an undocumented code status. When asked whether consent should be required for CPR for organ-preserving purposes, 39% answered “Yes” when a patient arrests before DNC and 48% answered “Yes” when a patient arrests after DNC (P = 0.2). Conclusions The majority of respondents did not consider donor status relevant to CPR decisions before DNC, and virtually all would respect a DNR order in a registered donor before DNC. Respondents were divided about the need for an affirmative consent for CPR for organ-preserving purposes both before and after DNC.

Recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment: ReSPECT a mixed-methods study

Background Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions have been widely criticised. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process was developed to facilitate shared decisions between patients and clinicians in relation to emergency treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Objective To explore how, when and why ReSPECT plans are made and what effects the plans have on patient outcomes. Design A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising (1) a qualitative study of ReSPECT decision-making processes, (2) an interrupted time series examining process and survival outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest and (3) a retrospective observational study examining factors associated with ReSPECT recommendations and patient outcomes. Setting NHS acute hospitals and primary care and community services in England (2017–2020). Participants Hospital doctors, general practitioners, nurses, patients and families. Data sources The following sources were used: (1) observations of ReSPECT conversations at six hospitals and conversations with clinicians, patient, families and general practitioners, (2) survey and freedom of information data from hospitals participating in the National Cardiac Arrest Audit and (3) a review of inpatient medical records, ReSPECT forms and NHS Safety Thermometer data. Results By December 2019, the ReSPECT process was being used in 40 of 186 (22%) acute hospitals. In total, 792 of 3439 (23%) inpatients, usually those identified at risk of deterioration, had a ReSPECT form. Involvement of the patient and/or family was recorded on 513 of 706 (73%) ReSPECT forms reviewed. Clinicians said that lack of time prevented more conversations. Observed conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other treatments and the patient’s values and preferences. Conversation types included open-ended conversations, with clinicians actively eliciting the patients’ wishes and preferences, a persuasive approach, swaying the conversation towards a decision aligned with medical opinion, and simply informing the patient/relative about a medical decision that had already been made. The frequency of harms reported on the NHS Safety Thermometer was similar among patients with or without a ReSPECT form. Hospital doctors and general practitioners gave different views on the purpose of the ReSPECT process and the type of recommendations they would record. Limitations The research was undertaken within the first 2 years following the implementation of ReSPECT. Local policies meant that doctors led these conversations. Most patients were seriously ill, which limited opportunities for interviews. Incomplete adoption of the ReSPECT process and problems associated with the NHS Safety Thermometer tool affected the evaluation on clinical outcomes. Conclusions Patients and families were involved in most ReSPECT conversations. Conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other emergency treatments. Respect for patient autonomy and duty to protect from harm informed clinicians’ approach to varying degrees, depending on the clinical situation and their views of ReSPECT as a shared decision-making process. The complexity of these conversations and the clinical, emotional and organisational barriers observed suggest that a nuanced and multifaceted approach will be necessary to support good ReSPECT processes. Future work Further research is needed to understand the advantages and disadvantages to the adoption of a national emergency care and treatment plan system, the most effective national and local implementation approaches, and whether or not shared decision-making approaches in the context of emergency care and treatment plans could further enhance patient and family engagement. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN11112933. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

DNACPR Decisions: Aligning Law, Guidance, and Practice.

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions are a means to consider in advance the appropriateness of CPR measures if an acute crisis arises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, problems with such decisions, for example the putting in place of DNACPR decisions for all residents of certain care homes, received a lot of attention, prompting a Care Quality Commission (CQC) report with recommendations for improvement. Building on the CQC report, our article addresses a cluster of legal uncertainties surrounding DNACPR decisions, in particular about the grounds for such decisions and the correct procedures for the legally required consultation, including with whom to consult.This article will also analyse commonly used DNACPR forms, as well as the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, which aims to incorporate DNACPR decisions as part of more holistic end-of-life care planning. The analysis shows that all forms exhibit shortcomings in reflecting the legal requirements for DNACPR decisions. We recommend a number of changes to the forms aimed at rendering DNACPR practice compliant with the law and more protective of the person’s human rights.

Knowledge, Attitude and Decision-making of Nurses in the Resuscitation Team towards Terminating Resuscitation and Do-not-Resuscitate Order.

Making appropriate decisions for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is very challenging for healthcare providers. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge, attitude, and decision making about do-not-resuscitate (DNR) and termination of resuscitation (ToR) among nurses in the resuscitation team. This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in April-September 2020. Participants were 128 nurses from the CPR teams of two hospitals in Kermanshah and Hamedan, Iran. A valid and reliable researcher-made instrument was used for data collection. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests, the Spearman's correlation analysis, and the logistic and rank regression analyses. Only 22.7% and 37.5% of participants had adequate knowledge about ToR and DNR. The significant predictor of DNR and ToR knowledge was educational level and the significant predictors of decision making for CPR were educational level, gender, and history of receiving CPR-related education (P<0.05). When facing a cardiac arrest and indication of DNR or ToR, 12.5% of participants reported that they would not start CPR, 21.5% of them reported that they would terminate CPR, and 14.8% of them reported that they would perform slow code. The DNR decision had significant relationship with educational level, DNR knowledge, and ToR knowledge (P< 0.05), while the ToR decision had significant relationship with educational level and ToR knowledge (P<0.05). Nurses' limited DNR and ToR knowledge and physicians' conflicting orders and documentation can cause ethical challenges for nurses. Clear guidelines for DNR orders or TOR is necessary for nurses, in order to prevent any potential confusion, legal or psychosocial issues and concerns surrounding CPR and improve their involvement in CPR decision making process.

DNACPR decisions during Covid-19: An empirical and analytical study.

Considerable concern has arisen during the Covid pandemic over the use of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decisions (DNACPRs) in England and Wales, particularly around the potential blanket application of them on older adults and those with learning disabilities. In this article, we set out the legal background to DNACPRs in England and the concerns raised during Covid. We also report on an empirical study that examined the use of DNACPRs across 23 Trusts in England, which found overall increases in the number of patients with a DNACPR decision during the two main Covid ‘waves’ (23 March 2020–31 January 2021) compared with the previous year. We found that these increases were largest among those in mid-life age groups, despite older patients (in particular, older women) having a higher number of DNACPR decisions overall. However, further analysis revealed that DNACPR decisions remained fairly consistent with regard to patient sex and age, with small reductions seen in the oldest age groups. We found that a disproportionate number of Black Caribbean patients had a DNACPR decision. Overall, approximately one in five patients was not consulted about the DNACPR decision, but during the first Covid wave more patients were consulted than pre-Covid.

Multidisciplinary residential home intervention to improve outcomes for frail residents

BackgroundResidential homes provide accommodation and assistance with personal care only and are not required to have registered nurses on site. However, their residents often have a combination of comorbidity, polypharmacy, frailty and mental-health conditions with poor access to healthcare to meet these needs. Integrated healthcare for older people is a key NHS priority in the Long-Term Plan and the Five-Year Forward View. We describe development and implementation of multi-disciplinary intervention to integrate healthcare and promote interprofessional education.MethodsA multi-disciplinary residential home quality improvement project in two cycles by a team comprising senior and trainee general practitioners, trainees in geriatrics, psychiatry, pharmacist and residential home senior staff. The intervention was underpinned by the framework for enhanced health in care homes including Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and mental-health review. Each intervention session included an educational presentation by a team member consideration of each resident in a pre-evaluation multi-disciplinary discussion followed by a structured clinical assessment and discussion of proposed management.ResultsThree residential homes participated with a total 34 residents receiving intervention. In one residential home, there was a 75% reduction in admissions for those reviewed and a reduction in overall admission costs. Polypharmacy was reduced by an average of 2 medications per resident across the three sites. There was a 63% increase in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation decisions and 76% increase in advance care planning discussions.ConclusionThis was an effective model for multi-disciplinary trainees working with a perceived impact on physical and mental health, and valuable opportunities for sharing learning.

799 Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decisions in Neck of Femur Fractures – Is Documentation Adequate?

Abstract Introduction ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) documentation is essential to communicate decisions regarding ceilings of care for patients to the clinical team. Patients admitted to hospital with a fractured neck of femur (#NOF) are often elderly with multiple comorbidities, and so robust and clear anticipatory care plans are especially indicated. Method All patients admitted to a large district general hospital in Scotland with a #NOF over a three-week period between 23/10/2020 and 12/11/2020 were identified prospectively and included in this audit. Patients’ demographic information, DNACPR status and the quality of their DNACPR documentation was recorded. Results 20 patients (85% Female, 15% Male) were identified and included. Median ASA grade was 3, with 77.8% of patients ASA grade 3 or 4. 63.2% of patients had DNACPR documentation in place, all of which were ASA grade 3 or above. Most DNACPR documentation had patient information clearly identifiable (91.7%), was completed preoperatively (90.9%), and involved either the patient or appropriate relative or power of attorney (91.6%). However, only 75% of patients’ documentation had the rationale for the DNACPR decision documented and only 25% of DNACPR decisions were reviewed by a senior clinician within 72 hours. No DNACPR decisions were documented as having been communicated to the wider healthcare team. Conclusions DNACPR documentation is a crucial for anticipatory care planning in #NOF patients. This audit shows improvement is needed in documenting whether decisions have been reviewed by senior clinicians, and if they have been communicated to the wider healthcare team.

Knowledge and attitudes about end-of-life decisions, good death and principles of medical ethics among doctors in tertiary care hospitals in Sri Lanka: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundCompetent end-of-life care is an essential component of total health care provision, but evidence suggests that it is often deficient. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes about key end-of-life issues and principles of good death among doctors in clinical settings.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among allopathic medical doctors working in in-ward clinical settings of tertiary care hospitals in Sri Lanka using a self-administered questionnaire with open- and close-ended questions as well as hypothetical clinical scenarios. Univariate and logistic regression analysis were used to identify the independent factors associated with knowledge and attitudes.ResultsOf the responders who had not been a caregiver for a terminally ill relative (n = 390), 57.9% were men with a mean age of 36.5 years (SD = 8.2). Compared to undergraduate (65.6%; n = 256), only 27.4% (n = 107) had received end-of-life care training at postgraduate level. Only 65.9% of doctors favoured disclosing terminal prognosis to patients; 27.7% of doctors were aware of advance directives; 14.6% were aware of the correct time of death when certifying brain death; 70.3% felt more comfortable in withholding than withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; 61.3% were aware of do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions while 26.7% felt reluctant to administer it; 15.1% thought that all life-sustaining therapy should be withdrawn with a DNACPR decision; and only17.9% were able to name the four principles of medical ethics while 57.9% could not name a single. Participants scored a mean of 9.2 (SD = 3.9) of a maximum 14 points when tested on principles of a ‘good death’. Doctors who had pursued postgraduate studies were more likely to be aware of breaking bad news (adjusted-Odds-Ratio:1.99; 95%CI = 1.19–3.32), advance directives (adjusted-OR: 4.15; 95%CI = 2.49–6.94), aware of certifying the correct time of death (adjusted-OR:2.37; 95%CI = 1.33–4.2) and less reluctant to make DNACPR decisions (adjusted-OR:1.74; 95%CI = 1.13–2.68). Doctors who had worked in ICU were more comfortable withholding than withdrawing treatment (adjusted-OR:1.99; 95%CI = 1.2–3.31).ConclusionsKnowledge and attitudes about end-of-life care, good death and principles of medical ethics among doctors in Sri Lanka were suboptimal. Structured training of end-of-life care needs to be integrated within curricula and in-service training.

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in people admitted with suspected COVID-19: Secondary analysis of the PRIEST observational cohort study

AimsWe aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of adults admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19 according to their DNACPR decisions, and identify factors associated with DNACPR decisions. MethodsWe undertook a secondary analysis of 13,977 adults admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19 and included in the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) study. We recorded presenting characteristics and outcomes (death or organ support) up to 30 days. We categorised patients as early DNACPR (before or on the day of admission) or late/no DNACPR (no DNACPR or occurring after the day of admission). We undertook descriptive analysis comparing these groups and multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of early DNACPR. ResultsWe excluded 1249 with missing DNACPR data, and identified 3929/12748 (31%) with an early DNACPR decision. They had higher mortality (40.7% v 13.1%) and lower use of any organ support (11.6% v 15.7%), but received a range of organ support interventions, with some being used at rates comparable to those with late or no DNACPR (e.g. non-invasive ventilation 4.4% v 3.5%). On multivariable analysis, older age (p < 0.001), active malignancy (p < 0.001), chronic lung disease (p < 0.001), limited performance status (p < 0.001), and abnormal physiological variables were associated with increased recording of early DNACPR. Asian ethnicity was associated with reduced recording of early DNACPR (p = 0.001). ConclusionsEarly DNACPR decisions were associated with recognised predictors of adverse outcome, and were inversely associated with Asian ethnicity. Most people with an early DNACPR decision survived to 30 days and many received potentially life-saving interventions. RegistrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533

P29 Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR.MethodsThe study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019.ResultsA total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001).ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease.

75 Community Dnacpr Forms: Opening A Can of Worms

Abstract Background There is no national guidance for the transfer of Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions between care settings. This issue has been highlighted within our Integrated Care Trust. We reviewed our local process, to improve the transfer of DNACPR decisions between care settings. Method A third PDSA cycle was completed to evaluate intervention. Intervention Frequently asked questions were added to the reverse side of the DNACPR form to improve patient understanding. All patients discharged home were given this updated form during a pilot study. The impact of the intervention was analysed with a follow-up phone call (n = 30) and discussed at a staff focus group. Results No improvement in patient understanding was shown post-intervention, however the intervention was overwhelmingly supported by staff. 60% of patients reported receiving a DNACPR form on discharge and 12% recalled being informed that they would be discharged home with a form. Conclusion Further work is required on the DNACPR pathway across primary and secondary care. The next cycle will involve ensuring that the community form is highlighted in hospital discussions regarding DNACPR decisions.

Advanced care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: ceiling of care decisions and their implications for observational data

BackgroundObservational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsRetrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation.ResultsA total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were ‘not for resuscitation’. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86–0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38–0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52–1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care.ConclusionCeiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.

Legal issues in end-of-life care 2: consent and decision-making

Paramedics are legally and professionally obliged to uphold their patients' right to dignity, respect and autonomy—and this includes the general requirement to obtain their consent before proceeding with any intervention. The first instalment of this two-part article considered the challenges that this might present to the paramedic. This second article develops this theme and further explores the legal framework underpinning the decision-making process when caring for a patient approaching the end of life. It also examines issues around consent and mental capacity in more depth and addresses matters such as such as advance decisions to refuse treatment (ADRT) and do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.

Nursing facility residents’ cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions

As many as one-quarter of all residents in nursing facilities have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as a documented choice in the medical record, despite the likelihood of limited medical benefit in this setting. The aim of this study was to understand the perspectives of healthcare providers and nursing facility residents regarding CPR decisions. We used qualitative interviews to examine the perspectives of residents with a documented decision for CPR in the medical record. We then compared residents' views with those of healthcare providers who routinely conduct advance care planning (ACP) conversations in the nursing facility setting. Five themes emerged from the interviews: (a) Resident versus Provider Concerns, (b) Offering Information versus Avoidance, (c) Lack of Understanding of CPR, (d) Lack of Awareness, and (e) 'Don't Keep Me on Machines'. Residents held misconceptions about CPR and/or exhibited an overall poor understanding of the relationship between their own health status and the likelihood of a successful CPR attempt. Although healthcare providers offer information and health education in an attempt to address knowledge gaps, these efforts are not always successful or even accepted by residents. Resident viewpoints and priorities differed from healthcare providers in ways that affected communication about CPR. Unrecognised differences in perceptions between providers and residents affect key aspects of ACP communication that can impact CPR decision-making. The concerns and priorities of institutionalized older adults may differ from those of healthcare providers, creating challenges for engaging some residents in ACP. ACP communication models and training should be designed not only to explore nursing facility residents' goals, values, and preferences, but also to elicit any underlying differences in perceptions that may affect communication. Healthcare providers can identifying the primary concerns of residents and assist them with integrating or reframing these issues as a part of ACP discussions.

Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR. MethodsThe study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019. ResultsA total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001). ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease.