OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study were to: (1) describe the documentation process of limitation of medical therapy (LMT) orders at the time of a rapid response team (RRT) call; and (2) compare documented LMT orders not associated with an RRT call (control, Group 1) with LMT orders documented at the time of an RRT call (Group 2). METHODS: A descriptive study, over a 6-month period (February-August 2011), involving the review of the medical records of patients prospectively identified as either Group 1 or Group 2. RESULTS: There were 994 RRT calls; of these, 50 patients (5%) had an LMT order documented by the RRT. A cardiac arrest was the trigger for the RRT for six patients (12%). Patients in Group 1 (n=50) and Group 2 were of similar median age (80.5 vs 78.5 years; P=0.30), LMTs were recorded at a similar time of day (15:30 vs 15:55 hours; P=0.52) and day of the week (weekend: 32% vs 35%; P=0.72). Comparing group 2 with Group 1, the RRT was less likely to document a not-for-resuscitation (NFR; 31 (62%) vs 49 (98%); P<0.01) or a not-for-ICU (NFICU; 18 (36%) vs 41 (82%); P<0.01) order, but more likely to document a not-for-RRT call (NFRRT; 31 (62%) vs 22 (44%); P=0.04) and modified RRT calling criteria (MRRT; 4 (8%) vs 0 (0%); P=0.04) orders. For Group 2 compared with Group 1 orders, involvement of the patient in the decision making process (9 (18%) vs 25 (50%); P<0.01) or the next of kin (29 (58%) vs 45 (90%); P<0.01) was documented less often. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of LMT orders at the time of an RRT call is less likely to include documented involvement of patients or their next of kin, and is more likely to be an NFRRT or MRRT order. These findings have implications for overall clinical governance. What is known about the topic? RRT are not infrequently involved in documenting LMT orders. What does this paper add? This is the first study in Australasia to look into the timing and circumstances surrounding the issuing of a NFR order during an RRT call. The study findings clarify the type of LMT orders documented by RRT and to what extent patients, their carers and senior medical staff are involved. What are the implications for practitioners? Our findings indicate that, in the setting of a rapid response system, there is a need to consider beyond the narrow interpretation of the NFR order, when a NFRRT may also be appropriate. This will require standardisation of such nomenclature, and training and education of those involved in documenting and interpreting such orders. Equally, it will require a different approach to the discussion with patients and their carers as to what the implications of an NFRRT order are. The findings also have significant implications as to the senior medical oversight of LMT, in particular for RRT, for whom it is their first encounter with such patients. Finally, the findings suggest that consideration be given to better delineating the documentation of the role of nursing staff when setting LMT orders.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study were to: (1) describe the documentation process of limitation of medical therapy (LMT) orders at the time of a rapid response team (RRT) call; and (2) compare documented LMT orders not associated with an RRT call (control, Group 1) with LMT orders documented at the time of an RRT call (Group 2). METHODS: A descriptive study, over a 6-month period (February-August 2011), involving the review of the medical records of patients prospectively identified as either Group 1 or Group 2. RESULTS: There were 994 RRT calls; of these, 50 patients (5%) had an LMT order documented by the RRT. A cardiac arrest was the trigger for the RRT for six patients (12%). Patients in Group 1 (n=50) and Group 2 were of similar median age (80.5 vs 78.5 years; P=0.30), LMTs were recorded at a similar time of day (15:30 vs 15:55 hours; P=0.52) and day of the week (weekend: 32% vs 35%; P=0.72). Comparing group 2 with Group 1, the RRT was less likely to document a not-for-resuscitation (NFR; 31 (62%) vs 49 (98%); P<0.01) or a not-for-ICU (NFICU; 18 (36%) vs 41 (82%); P<0.01) order, but more likely to document a not-for-RRT call (NFRRT; 31 (62%) vs 22 (44%); P=0.04) and modified RRT calling criteria (MRRT; 4 (8%) vs 0 (0%); P=0.04) orders. For Group 2 compared with Group 1 orders, involvement of the patient in the decision making process (9 (18%) vs 25 (50%); P<0.01) or the next of kin (29 (58%) vs 45 (90%); P<0.01) was documented less often. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of LMT orders at the time of an RRT call is less likely to include documented involvement of patients or their next of kin, and is more likely to be an NFRRT or MRRT order. These findings have implications for overall clinical governance. What is known about the topic? RRT are not infrequently involved in documenting LMT orders. What does this paper add? This is the first study in Australasia to look into the timing and circumstances surrounding the issuing of a NFR order during an RRT call. The study findings clarify the type of LMT orders documented by RRT and to what extent patients, their carers and senior medical staff are involved. What are the implications for practitioners? Our findings indicate that, in the setting of a rapid response system, there is a need to consider beyond the narrow interpretation of the NFR order, when a NFRRT may also be appropriate. This will require standardisation of such nomenclature, and training and education of those involved in documenting and interpreting such orders. Equally, it will require a different approach to the discussion with patients and their carers as to what the implications of an NFRRT order are. The findings also have significant implications as to the senior medical oversight of LMT, in particular for RRT, for whom it is their first encounter with such patients. Finally, the findings suggest that consideration be given to better delineating the documentation of the role of nursing staff when setting LMT orders.