ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A number of studies have explored doctors' views and experiences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but to our knowledge there has been no research to identify the information that doctors take into account when they make decisions about CPR. PURPOSE OF STUDY: To investigate factors that influence decisions about CPR. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study involving six focus groups with 17 doctors and four medical students in Leicester, UK. RESULTS: Doctors and medical students considered a number of factors important when making decisions about CPR-namely, the patient's diagnosis, prognosis, age, quality of life, the opinions of doctors and other medical staff, and the wishes of patients and relevant others. The relative importance of each of these factors varied significantly and was influenced by the doctors' own beliefs and values. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors would benefit from greater support for their decision making in relation to resuscitation to reduce variability in clinical practice and to promote appropriate patient care. Identification of factors that influence doctors' individual beliefs, attitudes and values towards resuscitation and improvement in the quality of patient communication may help to guide policy in this area.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/psychology , Medical Staff/psychology , Resuscitation Orders , Students, Medical/psychology , Age Factors , Attitude to Health , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/ethics , Decision Making , Focus Groups , Humans , Quality of Life , Resuscitation Orders/ethics , Resuscitation Orders/psychologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is a common and difficult symptom to treat in patients with cancer. Case reports suggest that nebulised furosemide can relieve breathlessness in such patients but few data are available. METHOD: Patients with primary or secondary lung cancer and a Dyspnoea Exertion Scale score of >or=3 were recruited. Following familiarisation, patients received either nebulised furosemide 40 mg or nebulised 0.9% saline under double blind conditions or no treatment, in random order on 3 consecutive days. Patients undertook number reading and arm exercise tests to assess breathlessness and its impact, and were asked to report subjective benefit and any preference between nebulised treatments. RESULTS: 15 patients took part. There were no differences between furosemide, saline and no treatment in the outcomes of the number reading test (eg, mean number read per breath was 6.7, 6.4 and 6.7, respectively) or arm exercise test (eg, mean Borg score at maximum equivalent workload was 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7, respectively). No adverse effects were reported, although there was a small fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced vital capacity following saline. Six patients considered that their breathlessness improved with nebulised treatment, three preferring saline, one furosemide and two reporting they were of equal benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support a beneficial effect from nebulised furosemide in patients with cancer related breathlessness. Listed on the National Research Register (N0170118249) and the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database (1428).
