Managing DNACPR Recommendations in Residential Care: Towards Improved Training for Social Care and Capacity Professionals

The use of 'Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' (DNACPR) recommendations has come under scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has issued a call for new standards, guidance and training. One group for whom new training is required is 'capacity professionals' working in and with residential care facilities. These professionals (including Independent Mental Capacity Advocates and Best Interests Assessors) typically have a social work background and have specialist training regarding the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, the provisions of which have a direct relevance to DNACPR recommendations. We report on a survey and focus groups that probed the experiences of this professional group during the pandemic. We recruited 262 participants by approaching civil society organisations in which capacity professionals are well represented;twenty-two participated in follow-on focus groups. We used manifest content analysis and descriptive statistics to analyse the results. Our findings contribute to an emerging picture of what transpired in residential care homes during the first year of the pandemic and help to provide an empirical and normative basis for the development of the new guidance and training for which the CQC has called. The use of 'Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' (DNACPR) recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a topic of continuing interest and concern. We report on the experiences of a distinctive group of professionals who worked in and with residential care homes during the pandemic. The results contribute to an emerging picture of what happened in care homes during the first year of the pandemic and help provide an empirical and normative basis for the development of the new guidance and training for which the Care Quality Commission has called. Participants reported on blanket applications of DNACPRs, failure of adequate consultation, inadequate or inadequately documented grounds for DNACPR recommendations, and reliance on DNACPR recommendations beyond their designated use. We identify five areas in need of clarification in relation to existing guidance and training and recommend modifications to the procedures used to record and review DNACPR recommendations.

Do not resuscitate orders in the time of COVID-19: Exploring media representations and implications for public and professional understandings

Context:: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK press featured headlines that heightened concerns around Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders, particularly the use of 'blanket' DNACPR orders applied to older people in care settings. The portrayal of DNACPR may impact professional and public understandings with implications for end-of-life care. Objectives:: To explore the portrayal of DNACPR orders in the general and academic press and consider implications for public and professional understandings and practice. Method:: Academic papers and articles published in the general press during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK were retrieved. Those pertaining to the use of DNACPR orders were analysed thematically. Results:: Analysis of 179 media articles and 11 professional commentaries identified mixed understandings of DNACPR as indicated within three themes: rationing of acute services, championing autonomy in DNACPR decisions, and communication and trust. The call to 'protect the NHS' marginalised palliative and social care services with DNACPR constructed as a rationing tool. This led to ethical challenges around autonomy, DNACPR decisions, communication and trust. Conclusions:: Media coverage of DNACPR orders was contentious and raised questions around the value of life and quality of dying, particularly for vulnerable individuals. DNACPR orders were conflated with frailty, futility and rationing of acute services and the marginalisation of palliative care. Nevertheless, media outputs stimulated advocacy and support for human rights and autonomy. However, it is unclear what the legacy will be for public and professional understandings of advance care planning and the quality of dying.

DNACPR Decisions: Aligning Law, Guidance, and Practice.

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions are a means to consider in advance the appropriateness of CPR measures if an acute crisis arises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, problems with such decisions, for example the putting in place of DNACPR decisions for all residents of certain care homes, received a lot of attention, prompting a Care Quality Commission (CQC) report with recommendations for improvement. Building on the CQC report, our article addresses a cluster of legal uncertainties surrounding DNACPR decisions, in particular about the grounds for such decisions and the correct procedures for the legally required consultation, including with whom to consult. This article will also analyse commonly used DNACPR forms, as well as the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, which aims to incorporate DNACPR decisions as part of more holistic end-of-life care planning. The analysis shows that all forms exhibit shortcomings in reflecting the legal requirements for DNACPR decisions. We recommend a number of changes to the forms aimed at rendering DNACPR practice compliant with the law and more protective of the person's human rights.

The Vicissitude of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) Order During COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan - A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Introduction: Japan went through five surges of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or "waves". However, their impacts on the do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) of the patients are not known. Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted for all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. Their code status was retrieved, and its association with the waves and other parameters, such as in-hospital mortality, was investigated. The relationship between DNACPR status and each wave was examined, as well as the effect on in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 1153 patients were hospitalized with the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the study period. On admission, 117 patients (10.1%) had DNACPR orders, 373 patients (32.4%) were on full code, 45 patients (3.9%) stated that they cannot decide code status. DNACPR rate appeared to increase at the summit of each wave. Subsequently, 160 patients (13.9%) became DNACPR status, 385 patients (33.4%) became full code, and 12 patients (1.0%) stated that they remained unable to decide code status. There was no association between DNACPR status and each wave, and DNACPR status was not associated with higher mortality (P = 0.87), both by logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: DNACPR status among hospitalized COVID-19 patients appeared to have changed over multiple waves in Japan, but it is more likely due to the change of the patients' demographics, particularly their age. DNACPR was common among the elderly, but it was not independently associated with higher mortality.

Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in patients admitted through the emergency department in a Swedish University Hospital - An observational study of outcome, patient characteristics and changes in DNACPR decisions.

AIMS: The aims were to examine patient and hospital characteristics associated with Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions for adult admissions through the emergency department (ED), for patients with DNACPR decisions to examine patient and hospital characteristics associated with hospital mortality, and to explore changes in CPR status. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients admitted through the ED at Karolinska University Hospital 1 January to 31 October 2015. RESULTS: The cohort included 25,646 ED admissions, frequency of DNACPR decisions was 11% during hospitalisation. Patients with DNACPR decisions were older, with an overall higher burden of chronic comorbidities, unstable triage scoring, hospital mortality and one-year mortality compared to those without. For patients with DNACPR decisions, 63% survived to discharge and one-year mortality was 77%. Age and comorbidities for patients with DNACPR decisions were similar regardless of hospital mortality, those who died showed signs of more severe acute illness on ED arrival. Change in CPR status during hospitalisation was 5% and upon subsequent admission 14%. For patients discharged with DNACPR decisions, reversal of DNACPR status upon subsequent admission was 32%, with uncertainty as to whether this reversal was active or a consequence of a lack of consideration. CONCLUSION: For a mixed population of adults admitted through the ED, frequency of DNACPR decisions was 11%. Two-thirds of patients with DNACPR decisions were discharged, but one-year mortality was high. For patients discharged with DNACPR decisions, reversal of DNACPR status was substantial and this should merit further attention.

DNACPR decisions during Covid-19: An empirical and analytical study.

Considerable concern has arisen during the Covid pandemic over the use of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decisions (DNACPRs) in England and Wales, particularly around the potential blanket application of them on older adults and those with learning disabilities. In this article, we set out the legal background to DNACPRs in England and the concerns raised during Covid. We also report on an empirical study that examined the use of DNACPRs across 23 Trusts in England, which found overall increases in the number of patients with a DNACPR decision during the two main Covid 'waves' (23 March 2020-31 January 2021) compared with the previous year. We found that these increases were largest among those in mid-life age groups, despite older patients (in particular, older women) having a higher number of DNACPR decisions overall. However, further analysis revealed that DNACPR decisions remained fairly consistent with regard to patient sex and age, with small reductions seen in the oldest age groups. We found that a disproportionate number of Black Caribbean patients had a DNACPR decision. Overall, approximately one in five patients was not consulted about the DNACPR decision, but during the first Covid wave more patients were consulted than pre-Covid.

Comparison of clinicians' perceptions of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process encourages collaboration between clinicians, patients, and relatives on emergency care wishes and resuscitation decisions. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinicians' views of the ReSPECT process was unknown. We examined whether there were changes in clinicians' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding ReSPECT during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of clinicians at one acute hospital in the UK. We developed a questionnaire with a defined 5-point Likert scale and asked clinicians to recall their pre-pandemic views on ReSPECT and report their current views at the time of survey distribution (May 2020, end of the first COVID-19 wave in the UK). We compared their self-reported views before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: We analysed 171 questionnaire responses. Clinicians reported ReSPECT telephone discussions with relatives were more challenging (pre-pandemic median 4, IQR 3-4; during pandemic median 4, IQR 4-5; p < 0.001) and negative emotions whilst conducting these discussions with relatives increased during the pandemic (pre-pandemic median 3, IQR 2-3.5; during pandemic median 3, IQR 2-4; p < 0.001). Clinicians also reported an increase in the importance of reaching a shared understanding of decisions with patients and relatives (pre-pandemic median 4, IQR 4-5; during pandemic median 5, IQR 4-5; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were differences in clinicians' knowledge, skills, and attitudes scores before and during the pandemic. Our findings highlighted that clinicians could benefit from training in remote ReSPECT conversations with relatives.

Advance care planning for patients with COVID-19: a communication guide.

In view of the high morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19, early and honest conversations with patients about goals of care are vital. Advance care planning in its traditional manner may be difficult to achieve given the unpredictability of the disease trajectory. Despite this, it is crucial that patients' care wishes are explored as this will help prevent inappropriate admissions to hospital and to critical care, improve symptom control and advocate for patient choice. This article provides practical tips on how to translate decisions around treatment escalation plans into conversations, both face-to-face and over the phone, in a sensitive and compassionate manner. Care planning conversations for patients with COVID-19 should be individualised and actively involve the patient. Focusing on goals of care rather than ceilings of treatment can help to alleviate anxiety around these conversations and will remind patients that their care will never cease. Using a framework such as the 'SPIKES' mnemonic can help to structure this conversation. Verbally conveying empathy will be key, particularly when wearing personal protective equipment or speaking to relatives over the phone. It is also important to make time to recognise your own emotions during and/or after these conversations.