ReviewBMJ supportive & palliative care2019
CPR decision-making conversations in the UK: an integrative review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of bereaved family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease regarding do-not-resuscitate orders: A qualitative study.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
- Determinants of decision-making for the initiation of resuscitation: a mixed-methods systematic review of barriers and facilitators.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Barriers and facilitators for cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with people with heart failure.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- The experiences of adult patients, families, and healthcare professionals of CPR decision-making conversations in the United Kingdom: A qualitative systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2023Review
- Physician perspectives on the DNR order in Turkey: A survey of physicians in Internal Medicine.African health sciences · 2023Article
- Cardiac Arrest Survival Postresuscitation In-Hospital (CASPRI) Score Predicts Neurological Favorable Survival in Emergency Department Cardiac Arrest.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Exploring and reconciling discordance between documented and preferred resuscitation preferences for hospitalized patients: a quality improvement study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Article
- Do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders: attitudes, perceptions and practices of Swedish physicians and nurses.BMC medical ethics · 2021Observational
- Recognising the elephant in the room: Foundation doctors and anticipatory care planning.Future healthcare journal · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Resuscitation discussions: learning from Covid-19.The clinical teacher · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.