Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVES: To 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 organisations. SETTING: Acute, community or ambulance...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freeman, Karoline, Field, Richard A, Perkins, Gavin D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4298091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25586369
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006517
_version_ 1782353222285918208
author Freeman, Karoline
Field, Richard A
Perkins, Gavin D
author_facet Freeman, Karoline
Field, Richard A
Perkins, Gavin D
author_sort Freeman, Karoline
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To 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 organisations. SETTING: Acute, community or ambulance National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: 48 NHS Trusts. INTERVENTIONS: Freedom of information requests for adult DNACPR policies were sent to a random sample of Trusts. OUTCOMES: DNACPR policies were assessed on aspects identified from national guidelines including documentation, ethical and legal issues, decision-makers and involvement of others in DNACPR decisions as well as practical considerations such as validity, review and portability of decisions. RESULTS: Policies from 26 acute, 12 community and 10 ambulance service Trusts were reviewed. There was variation in terminology used (85% described documents as policies, 6% procedures and 8% guidelines). Only one quarter of Trusts used the recommended Resuscitation Council (UK) record form (or a modification of the form). There was variation in the terminology used which included DNAR, DNACPR, Not for CPR and AND (allow natural death). Accountability for DNACPR decisions rested with consultants at all acute Trusts and the most senior clinician at community Trusts. Most Trusts (74%) recommended discussion of decisions with a multidisciplinary team. Compliance with guidance requiring clinical staff to assess the patient for capacity and when to consult a lasting power of attorney or independent mental capacity advocate occurred less commonly. There was wide variation in the duration of time over which a DNACPR decision was considered valid as well as in the Trusts’ approach to reviewing DNACPR decisions. The level of portability of DNACPR decisions between healthcare organisations was one of the greatest sources of variation. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the translation of the national DNACPR guidelines into English healthcare Trusts’ DNACPR policies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4298091
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42980912015-01-23 Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts Freeman, Karoline Field, Richard A Perkins, Gavin D BMJ Open Health Policy OBJECTIVES: To 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 organisations. SETTING: Acute, community or ambulance National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: 48 NHS Trusts. INTERVENTIONS: Freedom of information requests for adult DNACPR policies were sent to a random sample of Trusts. OUTCOMES: DNACPR policies were assessed on aspects identified from national guidelines including documentation, ethical and legal issues, decision-makers and involvement of others in DNACPR decisions as well as practical considerations such as validity, review and portability of decisions. RESULTS: Policies from 26 acute, 12 community and 10 ambulance service Trusts were reviewed. There was variation in terminology used (85% described documents as policies, 6% procedures and 8% guidelines). Only one quarter of Trusts used the recommended Resuscitation Council (UK) record form (or a modification of the form). There was variation in the terminology used which included DNAR, DNACPR, Not for CPR and AND (allow natural death). Accountability for DNACPR decisions rested with consultants at all acute Trusts and the most senior clinician at community Trusts. Most Trusts (74%) recommended discussion of decisions with a multidisciplinary team. Compliance with guidance requiring clinical staff to assess the patient for capacity and when to consult a lasting power of attorney or independent mental capacity advocate occurred less commonly. There was wide variation in the duration of time over which a DNACPR decision was considered valid as well as in the Trusts’ approach to reviewing DNACPR decisions. The level of portability of DNACPR decisions between healthcare organisations was one of the greatest sources of variation. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the translation of the national DNACPR guidelines into English healthcare Trusts’ DNACPR policies. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4298091/ /pubmed/25586369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006517 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Health Policy
Freeman, Karoline
Field, Richard A
Perkins, Gavin D
Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
title Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
title_full Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
title_fullStr Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
title_full_unstemmed Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
title_short Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
title_sort variation in local trust do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (dnacpr) policies: a review of 48 english healthcare trusts
topic Health Policy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4298091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25586369
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006517
work_keys_str_mv AT freemankaroline variationinlocaltrustdonotattemptcardiopulmonaryresuscitationdnacprpoliciesareviewof48englishhealthcaretrusts
AT fieldricharda variationinlocaltrustdonotattemptcardiopulmonaryresuscitationdnacprpoliciesareviewof48englishhealthcaretrusts
AT perkinsgavind variationinlocaltrustdonotattemptcardiopulmonaryresuscitationdnacprpoliciesareviewof48englishhealthcaretrusts