Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decision Research Articles

77 Introducing a Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and treatment escalation plan (TEP) guideline in an acute hospital.

Abstract Background In hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation has a 13–20% survival rate to hospital discharge. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders reduce resuscitation activity in people who are unlikely to survive due to underlying co-morbidities. The project aimed to identify current DNACPR practice and cardiac arrest calls in an acute care hospital and to improve communicating and documentation of DNACPR decisions. Methods A baseline audit of 20 medical charts identified variable practice on documenting DNACPR, inappropriate cardiac arrest calls and poor communication between the multidisciplinary team and patients on DNACPR decisions. A sub-committee of Medical Clinical Governance developed a hospital wide Guideline and Proforma for DNACPR that included a treatment escalation plan (TEP). Using quality improvement methodology and plan-do-study-act cycles the DNACPR proforma and decision support framework was refined and tested. Implementation strategies included stakeholder engagement, education, re-formatting documentation and recruitment of ward champions over a six month period. Post implementation audit measured compliance with completing the proforma and resuscitation calls. Results Clinical audit in February 2023 of 33 patient medical records identified 100% (n = 33) of patients with a DNACPR decision had the correct form in use. 96% documented communication with patients. All proformas were signed by a senior decision maker, included a TEP and were filed correctly in the patients notes. There was a 25% reduction in cardiac arrest calls. Only 56% of proformas were signed by nursing staff. Conclusion Implementing a standardised DNACPR proforma was feasible and improved documentation, visibility and ease of locating DNACPR decisions. It promoted timely communication with patients and families setting realistic goals of care in the TEP. In turn there has been a reduction in cardiac arrest calls. Nurses role in the process remains sub-optimal and there is a need to understand the experience of patients and families.

To resuscitate or not to resuscitate; a question for old age psychiatrists

AimsThe inpatient population of an older adult psychiatric ward will include people with physical and mental health conditions which affect life span and quality of life. Patients may be frail, acutely unwell, or have terminal illnesses such as dementia. It is therefore essential that clinicians review resuscitation status as part of their routine practice. However, we are aware that advanced decision-making – to resuscitate or not to resuscitate – is not routine practice across older adult psychiatric wards in the UK. Our 2017 audit reflected this, demonstrating a very low rate of resuscitation decisions at NELFT.This re-audit aimed to measure the frequency and quality of resuscitation decisions on an older adult psychiatric ward. We expected improvements in these areas, subsequent to changes implemented from the initial audit. We also sought to identify which patient factors influenced clinicians’ decision-making on resuscitation.Please note, this audit was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodIn June 2017, an audit of 25 patients admitted to two older adult psychiatric acute wards was completed. In December 2019, a retrospective analysis of the last 25 admissions to one older adult ward was undertaken. Electronic patient notes and DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) orders were examined. The audit measured frequency of resuscitation decisions and quality of documentation against current standards. DNACPR orders were analysed and clinicians were interviewed to identify the reasons for such decisions.ResultThere was an increase in the number of patients for which resuscitation decisions were made, from 4% in 2017 to 40% (n = 10) in 2019. The majority of patients with a DNACPR decision (n = 8) had a diagnosis of dementia. Prospective quality of life, with this diagnosis, was the most frequent determinant of DNACPR decisions (n = 7). Qualitative analysis indicated that clinicians were more likely to consider a resuscitation decision for patients with an organic disorder rather than functional disorder.Adequate completion of DNACPR orders was seen in each case. Either the patient, a family member or carer was involved in every decision. The standard for recording decisions on the electronic patient record was not met.ConclusionIt is good practice to consider resuscitation decisions for patients admitted to older adult psychiatric wards. This re-audit found an improvement in frequency of resuscitation decisions and also revealed differences in decision-making for patients with organic and functional disorders. Implementation of further change is indicated; decision-making can be improved through reflection, teaching, changes to practice, and technologies.

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

1598P - Escalation plans and DNACPR discussions in the unwell oncology patient

BackgroundPatients with advanced end stage cancer have < 1% chance of spontaneous circulation following cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Effective communication in a timely manner is best practice to ensure DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) decisions are implemented correctly, well understood by patients/relatives and to avoid unnecessary CPR. Previous audit data at LRI and clinician experience indicated that oncology inpatients were having significant delays in DNACPR discussions. In many cases DNACPR decisions were occurring in emergency clinical situations by out of hours on-call medical staff. MethodsWe identified unwell (early warning score >5) oncology inpatients admitted to LRI. Using a data collection tool, we primarily identified the proportion of patients who had a DNACPR decision. Furthermore, we analysed timeliness of DNACPR decisions, involvement of patients’ own oncology team and documentation of prognosis/escalation plans. Liaising with healthcare professionals from oncology & palliative care we formulated ideas to improve outcomes. Enhancing communication between permanent ward staff (nurses & junior doctors) and senior decision makers (oncology registrars & consultants) was vital to improve outcomes. We therefore empowered junior doctors/nursing staff to identify patients who needed DNACPR discussions using a proforma tool utilising board round meetings as a platform. Data was then analysed to compare outcomes. ResultsQualitative data showed improved confidence for junior doctors in identifying & communicating DNACPR discussions.Table1598PTableBefore InterventionAfter InterventionDNACPR discussed by own team11%54%DNACPR discussed by oncology team29%92%DNACPR discussed in daytime24%77%Mean time to implement DNACPR4 days2.5 daysDNACPR implemented and patient discharged home5%54%DNACPR not implemented in eligible patient – died following CPR44%12%Documentation of escalation plan30%85%Documentation of prognosis25%54% ConclusionsEmpowering junior doctors and simple departmental changes lead to a significant improvement in communicating and implementing DNACPR decisions. We therefore significantly reduced unnecessary CPR attempts and subsequently improved communication and documentation of escalation plans and prognosis. We believe our model can be implemented in other oncology centres and look forward to discussing this further. Legal entity responsible for the studyNational Health Service, UK. FundingHas not received any funding. DisclosureAll authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation decisions: an evidence synthesis

BackgroundCardiac arrest is the final common step in the dying process. In the right context, resuscitation can reverse the dying process, yet success rates are low. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a highly invasive medical treatment, which, if applied in the wrong setting, can deprive the patient of dignified death. Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions provide a mechanism to withhold CPR. Recent scientific and lay press reports suggest that the implementation of DNACPR decisions in NHS practice is problematic.Aims and objectivesThis project sought to identify reasons why conflict and complaints arise, identify inconsistencies in NHS trusts’ implementation of national guidelines, understand health professionals’ experience in relation to DNACPR, its process and ethical challenges, and explore the literature for evidence to improve DNACPR policy and practice.MethodsA systematic review synthesised evidence of processes, barriers and facilitators related to DNACPR decision-making and implementation. Reports from NHS trusts, the National Reporting and Learning System, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Office of the Chief Coroner, trust resuscitation policies and telephone calls to a patient information line were reviewed. Multiple focus groups explored service-provider perspectives on DNACPR decisions. A stakeholder group discussed the research findings and identified priorities for future research.ResultsThe literature review found evidence that structured discussions at admission to hospital or following deterioration improved patient involvement and decision-making. Linking DNACPR to overall treatment plans improved clarity about goals of care, aided communication and reduced harms. Standardised documentation improved the frequency and quality of recording decisions. Approximately 1500 DNACPR incidents are reported annually. One-third of these report harms, including some instances of death. Problems with communication and variation in trusts’ implementation of national guidelines were common. Members of the public were concerned that their wishes with regard to resuscitation would not be respected. Clinicians felt that DNACPR decisions should be considered within the overall care of individual patients. Some clinicians avoid raising discussions about CPR for fear of conflict or complaint. A key theme across all focus groups, and reinforced by the literature review, was the negative impact on overall patient care of having a DNACPR decision and the conflation of ‘do not resuscitate’ with ‘do not provide active treatment’.LimitationsThe variable quality of some data sources allows potential overstatement or understatement of findings. However, data source triangulation identified common issues.ConclusionThere is evidence of variation and suboptimal practice in relation to DNACPR decisions across health-care settings. There were deficiencies in considering, discussing and implementing the decision, as well as unintended consequences of DNACPR decisions being made on other aspects of patient care.Future workRecommendations supported by the stakeholder group are standardising NHS policies and forms, ensuring cross-boundary recognition of DNACPR decisions, integrating decisions with overall treatment plans and developing tools and training strategies to support clinician and patient decision-making, including improving communication.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002669.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Patients' characteristics associated with the decision of “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” order in a Swiss hospital

BackgroundAccording to Swiss legislation, do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order can be made at any time by patients only, unless the resuscitation is considered as futile, based on the doctors' evaluation. Little is known about how this decision is made, and which are the factors influencing this decision. MethodsObservational, cross-sectional study was conducted between March and May 2013 on 194 patients hospitalized in the general internal medicine ward of a Swiss hospital. The associations between patients' DNACPR orders and gender, age, marital status, nationality, religion, number and type of comorbidities were assessed. Results102 patients (53%) had a DNACPR order: 27% issued by the patient him/herself, 12% by his/her relatives and 61% by the medical team. Patients with a DNACPR order were significantly older: 80.7±10.8 vs. 67.5±15.1years in the “with” and “without” DNACPR order group, respectively, p<0.001. Oncologic disease was associated with a DNACPR order issued by the medical team (37.5% vs. 16.9% in the “with” and “without” DNACPR order group, respectively, p<0.05). Being protestant was associated with a DNACPR order issued by the patient (57.9% vs. 25.9% in the “with” and “without” DNACPR order group, respectively p<0.01). ConclusionsOver half of the patients admitted to a general internal medicine ward had a DNACPR order issued within the first 72h of hospitalization. Older age and oncologic disease were associated with a DNACPR decision by the medical team, while protestant religion was associated with a DNACPR decision by the patient.

Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts

ObjectivesTo 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...

DOCUMENTATION OF RESUSCITATION DECISIONS IN AN SPECIALIST PALLIATIVE CARE IN-PATIENT UNIT

BackgroundWe are based in what was the South Central Health Authority which introduced a Unified DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation) policy and document (lilac form). This enabled the...

Preparing for the unavoidable: public and clinician expectations of death

Preparing for the unavoidable: public and clinician expectations of death