How is the Term 'Harm' Being Interpreted and Documented on Hospice DNACPR Forms Following the Tracey Judgement?
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
To investigate how discussions surrounding Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions have changed following the Tracey judgement and how "harm" is being defined by clinicians working within specialist palliative care in a hospice setting.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
Detailed Description
This is a retrospective case note review. Five hospices within the West Midlands will be invited to participate and up to 300 sets of deceased patients' notes containing a DNACPR form will be reviewed; 150 from 2013 (prior to the Tracey judgement) and 150 from 2015 (following the Tracey judgement).
Initially these forms will be reviewed to document the percentage of patients with whom a DNACPR decision was discussed in 2013 and the percentage with whom it was discussed in 2015 to allow comparison from before the Tracey judgement and after the Tracey judgement.
If patients did NOT have DNACPR decisions discussed with them, their DNACPR forms and clinical notes will then be reviewed and the reasons documented for not involving patients in 2013 and in 2015 compared. It is anticipated that many, if not most, DNACPR decisions which were not discussed with patients in 2013 will cite "distress" as the reason but following the Tracey judgement this would not be acceptable in 2015.
Further analysis of DNACPR forms and clinical notes will then take place for those patients identified as not being involved in DNACPR discussions in 2015 (post-Tracey) to identify whether, and how, "harm" was defined by the clinician. This should be recorded on the DNACPR form or in the clinical notes.
Following data collection, quantitative analysis will be undertaken to allow comparison of percentages of DNACPR decisions discussed with patients in 2013 and 2015 followed by descriptive analysis of variation in reasons for not discussing DNACPR decisions in 2013 and 2015. This study is explorative in nature and further qualitative analysis will not be part of this research project.
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Year 2013 Participant's notes will be reviewed from the year 2013 |
Other: Review of notes
No intervention will occur
|
| Year 2015 Participant's notes will be reviewed from the year 2015 |
Other: Review of notes
No intervention will occur
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- The number of DNACPR decisions [1 year]
1) The number of DNACPR decisions which were discussed with patients in 2013 (prior to the Tracey judgement) and in 2015 (following the Tracey judgement)
- The reasons for not discussing DNACPR decisions [1 year]
2) The reasons documented on DNACPR forms and in clinical notes for not discussing DNACPR decisions in 2013 and in 2015
Secondary Outcome Measures
- The documentation of the concept of 'harm' in DNACPR decisions [1 year]
The documentation of the concept of 'harm' in DNACPR decisions not discussed with patients in 2015
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Patients who died in 2013 or 2015 known to the individual hospice team (in-patient unit, day unit or community team)
-
Completed DNACPR form within the clinical notes which was completed in 2013 or 2015
Exclusion Criteria:
-
No completed DNACPR form within the clinical notes
-
DNACPR form not completed in 2013 or 2015
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Compton Hospice | Wolverhampton | United Kingdom | WV3 9DH |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust
Investigators
None specified.Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
None provided.- 2017PAL94