Clinical trial NCT03195725: How is the Term 'Harm' Being Interpreted and Documented on Hospice DNACPR Forms Following the Tracey Judgement?
Official title: How is the Term 'Harm' Being Interpreted and Documented on Hospice DNACPR Forms Following the Tracey Judgement?
Study type: OBSERVATIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Conditions: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Lead sponsor: The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust
Sponsor class: OTHER_GOV
First posted: 2017-06-22
Enrollment: 300
Sex: ALL
Standard ages: CHILD
ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Observational model: COHORT
Time perspective: RETROSPECTIVE
Sampling method: NON_PROBABILITY_SAMPLE
Study population: Deceased patients' notes will be reviewed from 2013 (prior to the Tracey judgement) and from 2015 (following the Tracey judgement).

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.

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.

Eligibility 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

Primary outcomes:
measure: The number of DNACPR decisions
timeFrame: 1 year
measure: The reasons for not discussing DNACPR decisions
timeFrame: 1 year
Secondary outcomes:
measure: The documentation of the concept of 'harm' in DNACPR decisions
timeFrame: 1 year
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Wolverhampton
country: United Kingdom
facility: Compton Hospice
Study officials:
References: