'It's not magic': A qualitative analysis of geriatric physicians' explanations of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in hospital admissions

Comprehensive geriatric assessment as an essential tool to register or update DNR codes in a tertiary care hospital

PURPOSE

To investigate the prevalence of Do not Resuscitate (DNR) code registration in patients with a geriatric profile admitted to Antwerp University Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Flanders, Belgium, and the impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) on DNR code registration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a population of 543 geriatric patients (mean age 82.4 ± 5.19 years, 46.4% males) admitted to Antwerp University Hospital from 2018 to 2020 who underwent a CGA during admission. An association between DNR code registration status before and at hospital admission and age, gender, ethnicity, type of residence, clinical frailty score (CFS), cognitive and oncological status, hospital ward and stay on intensive care was studied. Admissions before and during the first wave of the pandemic were compared.

RESULTS

At the time of hospital admission, a DNR code had been registered for 66.3% (360/543) of patients. Patients with a DNR code at hospital admission were older (82.7 ± 5.5 vs. 81.7 ± 4.6 years, p = 0.031), more frail (CFS 5.11 ± 1.63 vs. 4.70 ± 1.61, p = 0.006) and less likely to be admitted to intensive care. During the hospital stay, the proportion of patients with a DNR code increased to 77% before and to 85.3% after CGA (p < 0.0001). Patients were consulted about and agreed with the registered DNR code in 55.8% and 52.1% of cases, respectively. The proportion of patients with DNR codes at the time of admission or registered after CGA did not differ significantly before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

After CGA, a significant increase in DNR registration was observed in hospitalized patients with a geriatric profile.

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision-making process: scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a scoping review to explore the evidence of the process of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision-making.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search and review of articles from 1 January 2013 to 6 April 2023 within eight databases. Through multi-disciplinary discussions and content analytical techniques, data were mapped onto a conceptual framework to report the data.

RESULTS

Search results (n=66 207) were screened by paired reviewers and 58 papers were included in the review. Data were mapped onto concepts/conceptual framework to identify timing of decision-making, evidence of involvement, evidence of discussion, evidence of decision documented, communication and adherence to decision and recommendations from the literature.

CONCLUSION

The findings provide insights into the barriers and facilitators to DNACPR decision-making, processes and implementation. Barriers arising in DNACPR decision-making related to timing, patient/family input, poor communication, conflicts and ethical uncertainty. Facilitators included ongoing conversation, time to discuss, documentation, flexibility in recording, good communication and a DNACPR policy. Challenges will persist unless substantial changes are made to support and promote examples of good practice. Overall, the review underlined the complexity of DNACPR decision-making and how it is a process shaped by multiple factors including law and policy, resource investment, healthcare professionals, those close to the patient and of central importance, the patient.

Examining how goals of care communication are conducted between doctors and patients with severe acute illness in hospital settings: A realist systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement in goals of care decision-making has shown to enhance satisfaction, affective-cognitive outcomes, allocative efficiency, and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. However, the involvement of patients in goals of care planning within hospitals remains limited, particularly where mismatches in shared understanding between doctors and patients are present.

AIM

To identify and critically examine factors influencing goals of care conversations between doctors and patients during acute hospital illness.

DESIGN

Realist systematic review following the RAMESES standards. A protocol has been published in PROSPERO (CRD42021297410). The review utilised realist synthesis methodology, including a scoping literature search to generate initial theories, theory refinement through stakeholder consultation, and a systematic literature search to support program theory.

DATA SOURCES

Data were collected from Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus databases (1946 to 14 July 2023), citation tracking, and Google Scholar. Open-Grey was utilized to identify relevant grey literature. Studies were selected based on relevance and rigor to support theory development.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 52 papers, supporting seven context-mechanism-output (CMO) hypotheses. Findings suggest that shared doctor-patient understanding relies on doctors being confident, competent, and personable to foster trusting relationships with patients. Low doctor confidence often leads to avoidance of discussions. Moreover, information provided to patients is often inconsistent, biased, procedure-focused, and lacks personalisation. Acute illness, medical jargon, poor health literacy, and high emotional states further hinder patient understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Goals of care conversations in hospitals are nuanced and often suboptimal. To improve patient experiences and outcome of care interventions should be personalised and tailored to individual needs, emphasizing effective communication and trusting relationships among patients, families, doctors, and healthcare teams. Inclusion of caregivers and acknowledgment at the service level are crucial for achieving desired outcomes. Implications for policy, research, and clinical practice, including further training and skills development for doctors, are discussed.

Overestimation of Survival Rates of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Is Associated with Higher Preferences to Be Resuscitated: Evidence from a National Survey of Older Adults in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Many widely used advance directives templates include direct questions on individuals' preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in case of decision-making incapacity during medical emergencies. However, as knowledge of the survival rates of CPR is often limited, individuals' advance decisions on CPR may be poorly aligned with their preferences if false beliefs about the survival rates of CPR shape stated preferences for CPR.

METHODS

We analyzed nationally representative data from 1,469 adults aged 58+ y who responded to wave 8 (2019/2020) of the Swiss version of the Survey on Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) to assess the partial association between knowledge of CPR survival rates and stated preferences for CPR using multivariable probit regression models that adjust for social, health, and regional characteristics. Knowledge of CPR survival rates was assessed by asking how likely it is in general in Switzerland for a 70-y-old to survive until hospital discharge from a CPR performed outside of a hospital. Preferences for CPR were measured by asking respondents if they would wish to be resuscitated in case of cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Only 9.3% of respondents correctly assessed the chances for a 70-y-old to survive until hospital discharge from a CPR performed outside of a hospital, while 65.2% indicated a preference to be resuscitated in case of a cardiac arrest. Respondents who correctly assessed CPR survival were significantly more likely to wish not to be resuscitated (average marginal effect: 0.18, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing misconceptions concerning the survival rates of CPR could change older adults' preferences for CPR and make them more likely to forgo such treatments.

HIGHLIGHTS

Many older adults in Switzerland overestimate the survival rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).The study reveals that individuals with accurate knowledge of CPR survival rates are more likely to refuse resuscitation in case of cardiac arrest.Overestimation of CPR survival rates may lead to a mismatch between individuals' preferences for CPR and their actual end-of-life care decisions.Improving the general population's knowledge of CPR survival rates is crucial to ensure informed decision making and effective advance care planning.

Introducing "A Question That Might, Perhaps, Scare you": How Geriatric Physicians Approach the Discussion About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Hospitalized Patients

Decisions about the relevance of life-sustaining treatment, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), are commonly made when a patient is admitted to the hospital. This article aims to refine our understanding of how discussions about CPR are introduced, to identify and classify the components frequently occurring in these introductions, and discuss their implications within the overarching activity (discussing CPR). We recorded 43 discussions about CPR between physicians and patients, taking place during the admission interview. We applied an inductive qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis to all the encounter content from the launch of the conversation on CPR to the point at which the physician formulated a question or the patient an answer. We identified this part of the encounter as the "introduction." This systematic method allowed us to code the material, develop and assign themes and subthemes, and quantify it. We identified four major themes in the introductions: (i) agenda setting; (ii) circumstances leading to CPR (subthemes: types of circumstances, personal prognostics of cardiac arrest); (iii) the activity of addressing CPR with the patient (subthemes: routine, constrain, precedence, sensitivity); and (iv) mentioning advance directives. Our findings reveal the elaborate effort that physicians deploy by appealing to combinations of these themes to account for the need to launch conversations about CPR, and highlight how CPR emerges as a sensitive topic.

"If I Become a Vegetable, Then no": A Thematic Analysis of How Patients and Physicians Refer to Prognosis When Discussing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Background: Documenting decisions about the relevance cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a standard practice at hospital admission yet a complex task. Objective: Our aim was to explore how physicians approach and discuss CPR prognosis with older patients recently admitted to a post-acute care unit. Method: We recorded 43 conversations between physicians and patients about the relevancy of CPR that took place at admission at the geriatric rehabilitation service of a Swiss university hospital. Thematic analysis determined (i) who initiated the talk about CPR prognosis, (ii) at what point in the conversation, and (iii) how prognosis was referred to. Results: Prognosis was mentioned in 65% of the conversations. We categorized the content of references to CPR prognosis in five themes: factors determining the prognosis (general health, age, duration of maneuvers); life (association of CPR with life, survival); proximal adverse outcomes (broken ribs, intensive care); long-term adverse outcomes (loss of autonomy, suffering a stroke, pain, generic, uncertainty); and being a burden. Discussion and conclusion: Discussing CPR is important to all patients, including those for whom it is not recommended. Information about CPR prognosis is essential to empower and support patients in expressing their expectations from life-prolonging interventions and attain shared decision-making.

Decision-making ethics in regards to life-sustaining interventions: when physicians refer to what other patients decide

BACKGROUND

Health decisions occur in a context with omnipresent social influences. Information concerning what other patients decide may present certain interventions as more desirable than others.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how physicians refer to what other people decide in conversations about the relevancy of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders (DNAR).

METHODS

We recorded forty-three physician-patient admission interviews taking place in a hospital in French-speaking Switzerland, during which CPR is discussed. Data was analysed with conversation analysis.

RESULTS

Reference to what other people decide in regards to CPR is used five times, through reported speech. The reference is generic, and employed as a resource to deal with trouble encountered with the patient's preference, either because it is absent or potentially incompatible with the medical recommendation. In our data, it is a way for physicians to present decisional paths and to steer towards the relevancy of DNAR orders ("Patients tell us 'no futile care'"). By calling out to a sense of membership, it builds towards the patient embracing norms that are associated with a desirable or relevant social group.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing DNAR decisions in terms of what other people opt for is a way for physicians to bring up the eventuality of allowing natural death in a less overt way. Formulating treatment choices in terms of what other people do has implications in terms of supporting autonomous and informed decision making, since it nudges patients towards conformity with what is presented as the most preferable choice on the basis of social norms.

"Do you want us to try to resuscitate?": Conversational practices generating patient decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation

OBJECTIVE

To explore how physicians elicit patients' preferences about cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during hospital admission interviews.

METHODS

Conversation analysis of 37 audio-recorded CPR patient-physician discussions at admission to a geriatric hospital.

RESULTS

The most encountered practice is when physicians submit an option to the patient's validation ("do you want us to resuscitate"). Through it, physicians display presuppositions about the patient's preference, which is not elicited as an autonomous contribution. Through open elicitors ("what would you wish"), physicians treat patients as knowledgeable about options and autonomous in determining their preference. A third practice is related to patients delivering their preference in anticipation of the request and is encountered only for choices against CPR. These decisions are revealed as informed and autonomous, and the patient as collaborative.

CONCLUSION

The way that physicians elicit patients' preferences about CPR influences the delivery of autonomous and informed decisions. Our findings point to an asymmetry in ways of initiating talk about the possibility of not attempting CPR, potentially exacerbated by the context of admission interviews.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Decisions about the relevancy life-sustaining interventions need an adequate setting in order to allow for patient participation. Our findings have implications for communication training in regard to involving patients in conversations about goals of care.

'It's not magic': A qualitative analysis of geriatric physicians' explanations of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in hospital admissions

BACKGROUND

Discussing patient preferences for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is routine in hospital admission for older people. The way the conversation is conducted plays an important role for patient comprehension and the ethics of decision making.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to examine how CPR is explained in geriatric rehabilitation hospital admission interviews, focussing on circumstances in which physicians explain CPR and the content of these explanations.

METHOD

We recorded forty-three physician-patient admission interviews taking place in a hospital in French-speaking Switzerland, during which CPR was discussed. Data were analysed in French with thematic and conversation analysis, and the extracts used for publication were translated into English.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 83.7 years; 53.5% were admitted for rehabilitation after surgery or traumatism. CPR was explained in 53.8% of the conversations. Most explanations were brief and concerned the technical procedures, mentioning only rarely potential outcome. With one exception, medical indication and prognosis of CPR did not feature in these explanations. Explanations occurred either before the patient's answer (as part of the question about CPR preferences) or after the patient's answer, generated by patients' indecision, misunderstanding and by the need to clarify answers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The scarcity and simplicity of CPR explanations highlight a reluctance to have in-depth discussions and reflect the assumption that CPR does not need explaining. Providing patients with accurate information about the outcomes and risks of CPR is incremental for reaching informed decisions and patient-centred care.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Patients were involved in the data collection stage of the study.