| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Ailsa Hospital, Dalmellington Road, Ayr KA6 6AB, email: Bill.Creaney{at}aapct.scot.nhs.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
We evaluated the various aspects of ‘do not resuscitate’ (DNR) decisions taken for psychiatric continuing care patients within NHS Ayrshire and Arran. Records were reviewed and nursing staff were asked their opinions about DNR orders in general and the way these were implemented on their wards.
RESULTS
There were 35 DNR orders among 88 continuing care patients in mental health wards for older adults. There were no DNR orders for the 25 continuing care patients in general adult psychiatry wards. Quality of life was the main issue when taking a DNR decision. Medical and nursing staff were involved in all decisions and the family in most. Patients were involved in only two cases. The documentation of the DNR order itself was satisfactory but documentation of the reasons behind the decision was inadequate. Patients with DNR status were perceived by ward staff to have more physical debilitation and more dependence on others. Local guidelines were being followed in most aspects, but these needed to be reviewed, as suggested within the resuscitation policy itself.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Decisions not to resuscitate may often be difficult to reach in psychiatric patients. Wards follow heterogeneous policies despite a resuscitation policy existing within the trust. Documentation needs to be improved and medical and nursing staff must reach a consensus regarding what constitutes quality of life and the appropriate time for a DNR decision.
|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Most studies on DNR decisions considered physically ill patients in whom CPR would have probably been unsuccessful (Beach & Morrison, 2002; Jackson et al, 2004; Hemphill et al, 2004; Tokuda et al, 2004). A number have explored ethical issues in the paediatric population (Klopfenstein et al, 2001; Da Costa et al, 2002). There are few studies of DNR decisions in those with psychiatric illness, where quality of life issues and the patient’s capacity/incapacity to consent could raise complex ethical dilemmas.
The aims of the current audit were: to look for reasons behind DNR decisions taken in psychiatric continuing care patients within NHS Ayrshire and Arran; to determine who were involved in these decisions; to examine the detail and precision of documentation; to determine how patients with a DNR status vary from those without; and to examine whether the local guidelines (resuscitation policy) were being followed.
|
|
Method |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The local DNR guidelines of NHS Ayrshire and Arran are based on those issued by the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the Royal College of Nursing (2001).
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the elderly mental health patients in continuing care are presented in Table 1. Those with and those without a DNR order did not vary significantly on any measurable characteristic. However, patients with a DNR status were perceived by ward staff to have more physical debilitation and more dependence on others, suggesting a poorer quality of life. Quality of life was the main factor in deciding on a DNR order, although it seemed to be a subjective judgement with staff varying in their opinions of what constituted quality of life.
|
Involvement in decision-making
When the patient had a living contactable relative, the relatives were
always involved in the decision-making. Records show detailed discussions
between the staff and family before the final decision was taken. In no case
was a DNR decision taken against the wishes of the family. In 6 patients (17%)
the family was not involved in the decision. In 2 of these cases, the records
showed no living next of kin; in the other 4, no relative could be contacted
with the details available. None of these patients had had any visitors for
several years. Only 2 patients had made living wills where they had stated
that they wished to have DNR orders in place when their condition had
deteriorated. They were against resuscitation. No patients had capacity to
consent at the time the decision was taken because of advanced dementia.
Nursing staff were involved in all decisions and medical staff relied on them
for an account of the patient’s quality of life, before beginning
discussions with the family.
Documentation
Documentation regarding who was involved in decision-making was precise and
complete in both medical and nursing notes. Documentation regarding the reason
behind DNR decisions was for the most part not clear; 21 (60%) of the DNR
documentation recorded no clear reason why the decision was being taken.
However, most of these case records did have clinical notes where the
deterioration of the patient was recorded and from which the reason behind the
DNR order could be gleaned. In 14 cases (40%) the one reason given was the
advanced state of illness which contributed to a poor quality of life and made
the success of CPR unlikely.
Nursing staff in all elderly mental health continuing care wards maintain a list of patients with DNR orders. We did not come across any patient who had a DNR order documented in the clinical records and yet was missing from the list, or vice versa. The wards of NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health use blue forms to record DNR decisions. These are easily detected within the notes and make the documentation of the order unambiguous. However, no blue forms were completed for 11 patients (31%). There were 2 blue forms each for 2 patients, with no evidence of the decision being reversed between the dates shown on these forms. In cases where there were no blue forms, the decision regarding DNR was clearly recorded in the notes and staff were clear who was for resuscitation and who was not.
Observance of guidelines
Guidelines were followed when a DNR decision was taken. The patients’
wishes (where expressed), the families’ wishes, the expected quality of
life and the prognosis of the patients’ conditions which influenced the
probable outcome of CPR were all taken into consideration. However, the
resuscitation policy also states that guidelines need to be reviewed and
audited annually and there was no documentation of this happening.
Continuing care patients within wards of NHS Ayrshire and Arran all have an annual review during which a DNR order, if in existence, is always reviewed and documented to be still in effect. We found this documentation in all relevant cases. Owing to the nature of illnesses among these patients, there was no reason to reverse a DNR order once in place.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Consultants on general adult wards and those on old age psychiatry wards differed in their opinions about whether DNR orders should be implemented at all. Moreover, consultants on old age psychiatry wards differed in their opinion about when the DNR decision should be considered. Some preferred to raise the subject with the family when the patient was considered to have a poor quality of life but would probably live for years in that condition. Others preferred to raise the sensitive issue only when a patient was clearly approaching the end of their life.
Different attitudes towards DNR orders have been found in other studies (Granja et al, 2001; Kelly et al, 2002) and have been influenced by medical specialty and years of experience and training. We were unable to compare differences in attitudes towards DNR orders within psychiatric sub-specialties. Positive findings from this study about the practice surrounding DNR orders within psychiatric continuing care wards were: the involvement of the nurses, family and patient (where possible) in discussion before a doctor took a DNR decision and the very clear and unambiguous documentation of the order itself. Other studies have reported dissatisfaction with nursing involvement (Castledine, 2004) and ambiguous documentation of the DNR order, sometimes leading to CPR being attempted in patients who were not for resuscitation (Skerrit & Pitt, 1997; Becker et al, 2003). However, we found scope for improvement in the documentation regarding the reason behind the order and in accordance with Skerritt & Pitt (1997). Documentation of who was involved in the decision was satisfactory.
Quality of life remained undefined by the resuscitation policy and staff differed in their opinion about quality of life. Studies reveal that physicians tend to underestimate quality of life in their patients (Junod Perron et al, 2002). This needs further discussion, involving various health professionals, to arrive at a consensus and thus uniform decision-making. Although a patient with a DNR order was always found to be incapable of making a decision because of the advanced stage of illness, there was no evidence of current cognitive abilities being measured by standard tests. Documentation of such an evaluation might add objectivity to the assessment of the patient’s condition at the time a DNR decision is being taken. It is noteworthy that only 2 patients had made their wish to have a DNR order known before significant cognitive deterioration. It may be worthwhile to consider DNR orders as a subject for discussion with a patient diagnosed with a progressively deteriorating condition such as dementia, as early as possible after diagnosis. This would give patients more chance to be involved in DNR decisions while they are still capable.
Another interesting revelation was the difference in understanding of what was conveyed by a DNR order among the nursing staff on the ward. Many nursing staff connected DNR not only with CPR but also with the intensity of medical intervention for any medical condition.
|
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
BECKER, L. J., YEARGIN, K., REA, T. D., et al (2003) Resuscitation of residents with do not resuscitate orders in long-term facilities. Prehospital Emergency Care, 7, 303 –306.
BERGER, J. T. (2003) Ethical challenges of partial
do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders: placing DNR orders in the context of a
life-threatening conditions care plan. Archives of Internal
Medicine, 163, 2270
–2275.
BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, RESUSCITATION COUNCIL & ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING (2001) Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/dnar.htm.
CASTLEDINE, G. (2004) Nurses should be more involved in DNR decisions. British Journal of Nursing, 13, 175.[Medline]
COTLER, M. P. (2000) The "do not resuscitate" order; clinical and ethical rationale implications. Medical Law, 19, 623 –633.
COWPER, A. (2000) Policies are needed to clarify DNR debate. British Journal of Nursing, 9, 1122.[Medline]
DA COSTA, D. E., GHAZAL, H. & AL KHUSAIBY, S. (2002) Do no resuscitate orders and ethical decisions in a neonatal intensive care unit in a Muslim community. Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fatal and Neonatal Edition, 86, F115 –F119.
DAUTZENBERG, P. L., BROEKMAN, T. C., HOOYER, C., et al
(1993) Review: patient-related predictors of cardiopulmonary
resuscitation of hospitalized patients. Age and
Ageing, 22, 464
–475.
GRANJA, C., TEIXEIRA-PINTO, A. & COSTA-PEREIRA, A. (2001) Attitudes towards do-not-resuscitate decisions: differences among health professionals in a Portuguese hospital. Intensive Care Medicine, 27, 555 –558.[CrossRef][Medline]
HARTLEY, J. (2004) DNR case highlights ethical dilemma. Nursing Times, 100, 10 –11.[Medline]
HEMPHILL, J. C., 3rd, NEWMAN, J., ZHAO, S., et al
(2004) Hospital usage of early do-not resuscitate orders and
outcome after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke,
35, 1130
–1134.
JACKSON, E. A., YARZEBSKI, J. L., GOLDBERG, R. J., et al,
(2004) Do-not-resuscitate orders in patients hospitalized with
acute myocardial infarction: the Worcester Heart Attack Study.
Archives of Internal Medicine,
164, 776
–783.
JUNOD PERRON, N., MORABIA, A. & TORRENTE, A. (2002) Quality of life of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) patients: how good are physicians in assessing DNR patients’ quality of life? Swiss Medical Weekly, 132, 562 –565.[Medline]
KELLY, W. F., ELIASSON, A. H., STOCKER, D. J., et al
(2002) Do specialists differ on do-not-resuscitate decisions?
Chest, 121, 957
–963.
KLOPFENSTEIN, K. J., HUTCHISON, C., CLARK, C., et al (2001) Variables influencing end-of-life care in children and adolescents with cancer. Journal of Pediatric Hemotology and Oncology, 23, 481 –486.
LEVIN, D. L. & LEVIN, N. R. (1980) DNR: an objectionable form of euthanasia. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 49, 567 –579.[Medline]
MURPHY, C. (2002) DNR: did Helen still want to die? Medical Economics, 79, 50 –52.[Medline]
SKERRITT, U. & PITT, B. (1997) ‘Do not resuscitate’: How? Why? And When? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 667 –670.[CrossRef][Medline]
THOMAS, J. (2002) Not all DNR decisions are black and
white. Age and Ageing,
31, 412
–413.
TOKUDA, Y., NAKAZATO, N. & TAMAKI, K. (2004)
Evaluation of end of life care in cancer patients at a teaching hospital in
Japan. Journal of Medical Ethics,
30, 264
–267.
VETSCH, G., UEHLINGER, D. E. & ZUERCHER-ZENKLUSEN, R. M. (2002) DNR orders at a tertiary care hospital – are they appropriate?Swiss Medical Weekly, 132, 190 –196.[Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
