ObjectiveTo compare 2011 and 2017 documentation of resuscitation decisions in older patients, including the frequency and clarity of documentation.MethodsThe clinical case notes of 130 patients aged 70 years and over were examined to identify how resuscitation decisions are discussed and documented at a major teaching hospital. Results were compared to 2011 data.ResultsThe proportion of patients with a documented order significantly increased, from 34 to 63%, with a concurrent increased number of patients identified as Not For Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (Not for CPR). The standardised documentation has also improved rates of documented discussion, legibility and identification of the involved doctor.ConclusionThe Resuscitation Plan 7‐Step Pathway has markedly improved the frequency of documented discussion, the rate of recorded Not For CPR status and clarity of documentation. There is scope for improvement as this policy is embraced across South Australia.
Not for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (No-CPR) orders, or the local equivalent, help prevent futile or unwanted cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The importance of unambiguous and readily available documentation at the time of arrest seems self-evident, as does the need to establish a patient’s treatment preferences prior to any clinical deterioration. Despite this, the frequency and quality of No-CPR orders remains highly variable, while discussions with the patient about their treatment preferences are undervalued, occur late in the disease process, or are overlooked entirely. This review explores the evolution of hospital patient No-CPR/Do Not Resuscitate decisions over the past 60 years. A process based on standardized resuscitation plans has been shown to increase the frequency and clarity of documentation, reduce stigma attached to the documentation of a No-CPR order, and support the delivery of medically appropriate and desired care for the hospital patient.
IntroductionResuscitation clinical care plans (resuscitation plans) are gradually replacing ‘Not for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ orders in the hospital setting. The 7-Step Pathway Resuscitation Plan and Alert form (7-Step form) is one example of a resuscitation plan. Treatment recommendations in resuscitation plans currently lack standardised language, creating potential for misinterpretation and patient harm.AimsTo explore how terminology used in resuscitation plans is interpreted and applied by clinicians.MethodA mixed methods study surveyed 50 general medical doctors, who were required to interpret and apply a 7-Step form in three case vignettes and define seven key terms. Statistical analysis on multiple choice and thematic analysis on free-text responses was performed.ResultsTerminology was inconsistently interpreted and inconsistently applied, resulting in clinically significant differences in treatment choices. Three key themes influenced the application of a resuscitation plan: in-depth discussion, precise documentation and personal experience of the bedside deciding doctor.DiscussionThis study highlights persistent communication deficiencies in resuscitation plan documentation and how this may adversely affect patient care; findings unlikely to be unique to Australia or South Australia.ConclusionRemoving ambiguity by standardising and defining the terminology in resuscitation plans will improve bedside decision-making, while also supporting the rights of the patient to receive appropriate and desired care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.