Carole Mockford1, Zoë Fritz2, Rob George3, Rachel Court1, Amy Grove1, Ben Clarke4, Richard Field5, Gavin D Perkins6. 1. Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom. 2. Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Box 148, CUH NHS FT, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom. 3. Cicely Saunders Institute, Kings College London, United Kingdom; Palliative Care Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond SE1 7RT, United Kingdom. 4. Glasgow Medical School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom. 5. Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, United Kingdom; Heart of England, NHS Foundation Trust, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, United Kingdom. 6. Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom; Heart of England, NHS Foundation Trust, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, United Kingdom.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Most people who die in hospital do so with a DNACPR order in place, these orders are the focus of considerable debate. AIM: To identify factors, facilitators and barriers involved in DNACPR decision-making and implementation. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
UNLABELLED: Most people who die in hospital do so with a DNACPR order in place, these orders are the focus of considerable debate. AIM: To identify factors, facilitators and barriers involved in DNACPR decision-making and implementation. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Zohra Zenasni; Emily C Reynolds; David A Harrison; Kathryn M Rowan; Jerry P Nolan; Jasmeet Soar; Gary B Smith Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 2.659
Authors: Nicholas Waldron; Claire E Johnson; Peter Saul; Heidi Waldron; Jeffrey C Chong; Anne-Marie Hill; Barbara Hayes Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Eva Piscator; Therese Djärv; Katarina Rakovic; Emil Boström; Sune Forsberg; Martin J Holzmann; Johan Herlitz; Katarina Göransson Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-04-29