Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30108041›Full record

ReviewBMJ supportive & palliative care2019

CPR decision-making conversations in the UK: an integrative review.

Charlie C Hall, Jean Lugton, Juliet Anne Spiller, Emma Carduff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Emerging Trends and Hot Topics in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Research: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2010 to 2019.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Charlie C HallSt Columba's Hospice, Edinburgh, UK.
Jean LugtonMarie Curie Hospice, Edinburgh, UK.
Juliet Anne SpillerMarie Curie Hospice, Edinburgh, UK.
Emma CarduffMarie Curie Hospice, Glasgow.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDo Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) discussions with patients and their caregivers have been subjected to intense ethical and legal debate in recent years. Legal cases and national guidelines have tried to clarify the best approach to DNACPR discussions; however, there is little evidence of how best to approach them from the patient, family or caregiver perspective. This paper describes published accounts of patient, family and caregiver experiences of discussions about advance cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decision making.

methodsAn integrative review of the UK literature between 2000 and 2016 including qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted. Worldwide, 773 abstracts were identified, and 20 papers from the UK were included in the final analysis.

resultsPatient, family and caregivers prefer discussions to be initiated by someone trusted, and wishes for family involvement vary depending on the context. Timing of discussions should be individualised, though discussions earlier in the illness are often preferable. Discussions held in the acute setting are suboptimal. CPR decisions should be part of a wider discussion about future care and adequate communication skills training is important.

conclusionsThe findings of this review are at odds with the current statutory framework and potentially challenging for medical professionals who are working in a stretched health service, with pressure to discuss DNACPR decisions at the earliest opportunity. With increasing focus on person-centred care and realistic medicine, patient narratives must be considered by doctors and policy makers alike, to minimise harm.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningDecision MakingCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCommunicationFemaleHumansMalePhysiciansResuscitation OrdersUnited Kingdomclinical decisionscommunicationfamily managementintegrative reviewresuscitation

Identifiers

PMID30108041
PMCPMC6579491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.