Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32414725›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2020

From paper to paperless: Do electronic systems ensure safe and effective communication and documentation of DNACPR decisions?

Laura Harrington, Kathryn Price, Polly Edmonds

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. DNACPR decisions.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2020
    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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura HarringtonUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK laura.harrington6@nhs.net.
Kathryn PriceUniversity Hospital Lewisham, London, UK.
Polly EdmondsKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital Lewisham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn electronic resuscitation system, implemented in 2015, within electronic patient records (EPR) at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust was studied, aiming to review and improve decision documentation and communication.

methodThe study (January 2018 - June 2018) included all gerontology inpatients with electronic do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (e-DNACPR) decisions. Cases were identified weekly, followed by retrospective analysis of discharges. Amendments to the electronic system and improvements were implemented between cycles. CYCLE 1: One-hundred and thirty-three patients were included; 85% had an e-DNACPR form; 86% of all forms had senior doctor involvement; 68% evidenced patient/relative discussion; 13% documented multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion.

interventionsA mandatory 'named nurse' field was added to the form and trust-wide education programme implemented. CYCLE 2: One-hundred and twenty-six patients were included; 100% had an e-DNACPR form; 93% evidenced senior doctor involvement; 71% evidenced patient/relative discussion; 57% documented MDT discussion.

conclusionChanges to the process and trust-wide education resulted in more robust documentation and communication.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationResuscitation OrdersCommunicationDecision MakingDocumentationElectronicsHumansRetrospective Studiesadvanced care planningcommunicationDNACPRpatient safetyResuscitation

Identifiers

PMID32414725
PMCPMC7354023
OpenAlexW3025331847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.