Does medical futility matter in 'do not attempt CPR' decision-making?

The current demographical trend towards an increasingly elderly population combined with advances in end of life care calls for a deeper understanding and common terminology about the concept of futility and additional influences on the resuscitation decision-making process. Such improved understanding of medical futility and other contributing factors when making DNACPR orders would help to ensure that clinicians make appropriate and thoughtful decisions on whether to recommend resuscitation in a patient. When estimating medical futility a physician should consider the chance of survival over different time periods and balance this against the chance of adverse outcomes. This information can then be offered to the patient (or the relatives) so that the patient's views about what is acceptable for the survival chance, length and type of survival can be factored into the eventual decision. Given the lack of evidence in this area and the poor level of patient knowledge and the emotive nature of the topic, it is not surprising that clinicians find such discussions hard.

Barriers to involving older people in their resuscitation decisions: the primary-secondary care mismatch highlights the potential role of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: 'Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' (DNACPR) orders are made frequently for older people in hospital. Sensitive anticipatory discussion is encouraged where possible, but usually this does not happen, despite the evidence suggesting that many older patients would like to be involved in such decisions. METHODS: Current clinical practice in both primary care and secondary care and perceived barriers to patient involvement in resuscitation decisions was assessed using a questionnaire in Medicine for the Elderly physicians in two hospitals, and General Practitioners of teaching practices in Norfolk. RESULTS: Response rate was 51% (n = 24/47). Hospital-based clinicians made DNACPR decisions more frequently, but discussed decisions with patients in less than 25% of cases. By contrast, GPs thought that patient involvement was more important and felt that they had a better understanding of the patient's wishes due to the long-term relationship they shared. Mental capacity was seen as the biggest barrier to patient involvement by both groups. Other barriers included lack of understanding, communication difficulties and practical concerns. CONCLUSION: Further support and training could help clinicians improve their resuscitation decision-making practice. Advanced discussion in Primary Care with older people before they lose capacity may have a role in increasing their involvement in resuscitation decision making.

Advance care planning and the older patient.

Making treatment decisions for older people is difficult, because of the complex interplay of their multiple co-morbidities, but also because of the fine balance of risks vs. benefit in any chosen management plan. This becomes even more difficult when they lose the capacity to tell us what they want, and often in such situations we have to rely on information from others in order to make decisions based on their best interests. Advance care planning should help with making these decisions clearer, based on the documented preferences of what the patient would have wanted while capacity was still present. However, such documents are still very rarely used, and even if they are, health-care professionals are often wary of them for the multitude of ethical and legal problems that can arise.

In-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Trainees' worst and most memorable experiences.

BACKGROUND: To examine the personal experiences of higher specialist trainees in Geriatric Medicine (GM) with regard to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) decision making. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirty-five higher trainee members of the British Geriatrics Society (BGS) at the Specialist Registrar (SpR) level. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. METHODS: We distributed a questionnaire examining the various issues around DNAR decision making among the trainee members of the BGS in November 2003. In one of the questions, we asked the participants, 'Briefly describe your worst or most memorable experience of DNAR'. Responses to this question were analysed by thematic schema and are presented. RESULTS: Overall the response rate was 62% (251/408) after second mailing and 235 of these were at SpR grade. One hundred and ninety-eight participants provided an answer to the above question, providing diverse and often detailed accounts, most of which were negative experiences and which appeared to have had a powerful influence on their ongoing clinical practice. The emerging themes demonstrated areas of conflict between trainees and other doctors as well as patients and relatives. CONCLUSION: SpR grade geriatricians are exposed to extreme and varied experiences of DNAR decision making in the UK. Efforts to improve support and training in this area should embrace the complexity of the subject.

Experiences and views of specialist registrars in geriatric medicine on 'do not attempt resuscitation' decisions: a sea of uncertainty?

BACKGROUND: Recent cultural changes place doctors under increasing pressure to work with their patients to reach decisions about end-of-life care. AIM: To survey the experience, practice and opinions of specialist registrars (SPRs) in geriatric medicine regarding 'do not attempt resuscitation' (DNAR) decisions. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all members registered as trainees (n = 408) with the British Geriatrics Society in November 2003; a reminder was sent nine weeks later. Responses were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative (thematic) approaches. RESULTS: Response rate was 62% (251/408), of whom 235 were still SpRs. Respondents played a major role in DNAR decision-making in their day-to-day clinical practice. Over a third of respondents did not feel that locally available guidelines were helpful. More than half sometimes disagreed with their consultants' decision, and a fifth were concerned about the possibility of complaints regarding the decisions they made. The majority felt uncomfortable discussing the issue with the patient, and were more likely to discuss the issue with relatives than with patients. DISCUSSION: Further support and training may improve confidence and positive experiences in relation to DNAR decision-making among training-grade doctors in the UK.

Raised blood urea in the elderly: a clinical and pathological study.

We have attempted to define a normal range for blood urea and creatinine for elderly inpatients and to determine the relative importance of pre-renal, renal and post-renal pathology in those with renal impairment. A total of 118 admissions to an acute geriatric unit and 67 separate post mortems in patients over 67 years of age were studied prospectively. Up to 123 items of data were coded and analysed including blood urea and creatinine, clinical or pathological changes associated with renal disease, clinical outcome and post mortem findings. We determined our own 'normal' hospital ranges for urea (1.4-13.2 mmol/l) and creatinine (48-141 mumol/l) from plasma values in 76 patients with no evidence of renal impairment, either on admission or in the past. Using these values 41% of post mortem cases and 25% of clinical admissions had a raised blood urea. Pre-renal conditions such as cardiac failure, dehydration and gastrointestinal haemorrhage, either alone or in combination, were present in 56% of these patients. Urea and creatinine values were substantially higher in patients who died in hospital as opposed to those who were discharged or transferred. Creatinine values were greater in those with intrinsic renal disease or post-renal obstruction as compared to patients with pre-renal causes of renal impairment. Patients with histological evidence of extensive glomerulosclerosis or nephrosclerosis had higher urea and creatinine levels than those with only minor ageing changes.