19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Resuscitation policy should focus on the patient, not the decision

      other
      1 , 2 , 1 , 1 , 3
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Zoë Fritz and colleagues discuss new approaches to resuscitation decisions that incorporate broader goals of care

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Toward Evidence-Based End-of-Life Care.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults.

            Instructional forms of advance care planning depend on the ability of patients to predict their future treatment preferences. However, preferences may change with changes in patients' health states. We conducted in-home interviews of 226 older community-dwelling persons with advanced cancer, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at least every 4 months for up to 2 years. Patients were asked to rate whether treatment for their illness would be acceptable if it resulted in 1 of 4 health states. The likelihood of rating as acceptable a treatment resulting in mild (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.16) or severe (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09) functional disability increased with each month of participation. Patients who experienced a decline in their ability to perform instrumental activities of daily living were more likely to rate as acceptable treatment resulting in mild (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.40) or severe (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.37) disability. Although the overall likelihood of rating treatment resulting in a state of pain as acceptable did not change over time (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01), patients who had moderate to severe pain were more likely to rate this treatment as acceptable (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.56-4.19) than were those who did not have moderate to severe pain. For some patients, the acceptability of treatment resulting in certain diminished states of health increases with time, and increased acceptability is more likely among patients experiencing a decline in that same domain. These changes pose a challenge to advance care planning, which asks patients to predict their future treatment preferences.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Universal Form of Treatment Options (UFTO) as an Alternative to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) Orders: A Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Effects on Clinical Practice and Patient Care

              Aims To determine whether the introduction of the Universal Form of Treatment Options (the UFTO), as an alternative approach to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders, reduces harms in patients in whom a decision not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was made, and to understand the mechanism for any observed change. Methods A mixed-methods before-and-after study with contemporaneous case controls was conducted in an acute hospital. We examined DNACPR (103 patients with DNACPR orders in 530 admissions) and UFTO (118 decisions not to attempt resuscitation in 560 admissions) practice. The Global Trigger Tool was used to quantify harms. Qualitative interviews and observations were used to understand mechanisms and effects. Results Rate of harms in patients for whom there was a documented decision not to attempt CPR was reduced: Rate difference per 1000 patient-days was 12.9 (95% CI: 2.6–23.2, p-value = 0.01). There was a difference in the proportion of harms contributing to patient death in the two periods (23/71 in the DNACPR period to 4/44 in the UFTO period (95% CI 7.8–36.1, p-value = 0.006). Significant differences were maintained after adjustment for known confounders. No significant change was seen on contemporaneous case control wards. Interviews with clinicians and observation of ward practice revealed the UFTO helped provide clarity of goals of care and reduced negative associations with resuscitation decisions. Conclusions Introducing the UFTO was associated with a significant reduction in harmful events in patients in whom a decision not to attempt CPR had been made. Coupled with supportive qualitative evidence, this indicates the UFTO improved care for this vulnerable group. Trial Registration Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN85474986 UK Comprehensive Research Network Portfolio 7932
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Wellcome fellow in society and ethics and consultant in acute medicine
                Role: reader in clinical ethics
                Role: professor of critical care medicine
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2017
                28 February 2017
                : 356
                : j813
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Warwick Medical School, Division of Health Sciences, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
                [2 ]Cambridge University Hospitals
                [3 ]Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, University of Warwick
                Author notes
                Accepted 13 February 2017
                Article
                friz037948
                10.1136/bmj.j813
                5330195
                28246084
                6e90199e-5ef9-48b6-bcb1-712388e3a2fd
                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/.

                History
                Categories
                Analysis

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article