...
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
【24h】

Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts

机译:本地信任的变化不要尝试心肺复苏(DNACPR)政策:对48家英国医疗保健信任机构的评论

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objectives To explore Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies from English acute, community and ambulance service Trusts for evidence of consistency and variation in implementation of national guidelines between healthcare organisations. Setting Acute, community or ambulance National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England. Participants 48 NHS Trusts. Interventions Freedom of information requests for adult DNACPR policies were sent to a random sample of Trusts. Outcomes DNACPR policies were assessed on aspects identified from national guidelines including documentation, ethical and legal issues, decision-makers and involvement of others in DNACPR decisions as well as practical considerations such as validity, review and portability of decisions. Results Policies from 26 acute, 12 community and 10 ambulance service Trusts were reviewed. There was variation in terminology used (85% described documents as policies, 6% procedures and 8% guidelines). Only one quarter of Trusts used the recommended Resuscitation Council (UK) record form (or a modification of the form). There was variation in the terminology used which included DNAR, DNACPR, Not for CPR and AND (allow natural death). Accountability for DNACPR decisions rested with consultants at all acute Trusts and the most senior clinician at community Trusts. Most Trusts (74%) recommended discussion of decisions with a multidisciplinary team. Compliance with guidance requiring clinical staff to assess the patient for capacity and when to consult a lasting power of attorney or independent mental capacity advocate occurred less commonly. There was wide variation in the duration of time over which a DNACPR decision was considered valid as well as in the Trusts’ approach to reviewing DNACPR decisions. The level of portability of DNACPR decisions between healthcare organisations was one of the greatest sources of variation. Conclusions There is significant variation in the translation of the national DNACPR guidelines into English healthcare Trusts’ DNACPR policies.
机译:目的探讨英国急诊,社区和救护服务信托机构的未尝试心肺复苏(DNACPR)政策,以证明医疗机构之间在实施国家指南方面具有一致性和差异性。在英格兰设立急性,社区或救护车国家卫生服务(NHS)信托。参与者48个NHS信托。干预措施将针对成人DNACPR政策的信息自由请求发送到一个随机的信托样本中。评估DNACPR政策的结果是从国家指南中确定的方面进行评估的,这些方面包括文档,道德和法律问题,决策者以及其他人参与DNACPR决策,以及诸如决策的有效性,审查和可移植性等实际考虑。结果回顾了来自26个急性,12个社区和10个救护车服务信托的政策。使用的术语有所不同(85%的文件描述为政策,6%的程序和8%的准则)。只有四分之一的信托使用推荐的复苏委员会(UK)记录表(或对该表进行修改)。使用的术语有所不同,包括DNAR,DNACPR,不适用于CPR和AND(允许自然死亡)。 DNACPR决策的责任由所有急性信托基金的顾问和社区信托基金的最高级临床医生负责。大多数信托(74%)建议与多学科团队讨论决策。遵循要求临床工作人员评估患者的能力以及何时咨询持久授权书或独立的心理能力提倡者的指导的情况很少发生。在认为DNACPR决定有效的持续时间以及信托机构审查DNACPR决定的方法上,存在很大差异。医疗保健组织之间DNACPR决策的可移植性水平是差异最大的来源之一。结论将国家DNACPR指南翻译成英国医疗信托基金会的DNACPR政策存在很大差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号