Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40186226›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice and policy in Ireland: a mixed-methods study of service user and advocacy group perspectives.

John Lombard, Hope Davidson, Owen Doody

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

John LombardSchool of Law, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. John.lombard@ul.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2201-5441
Hope DavidsonSchool of Law, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3501-5611
Owen DoodyHealth Research Institute, Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-1647

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiopulmonary resuscitation offers the potential to save a person's life. However, this highly invasive medical treatment is not always appropriate, and the likelihood of success is relatively low. In Ireland, the Health Service Executive (HSE) National Consent Policy establishes the national guidance in respect of DNACPR decisions, and this was supplemented by HSE Guidance Regarding Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and DNAR Decision-Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Previous research on DNACPR practice in Ireland concentrated on the perspective of the medical and nursing professions and was completed prior to publication of the supplementary guidance. In contrast, this article reports on research which investigates service user and advocacy group perspectives on DNACPR practice and policy in Ireland.

methodsThe research utilized mixed methods design to collect quantitative and qualitative data. A questionnaire with close-ended and open-ended questions was distributed via Qualtrics, targeting the public while explicitly excluding healthcare workers to focus on patient and caregiver experiences. Recruitment involved identifying relevant advocacy and state organizations and leveraging professional networks and social media to maximize participation and minimize selection bias. Recruitment was conducted through collaboration with organizations that advocate for individuals affected by DNACPR decisions. Survey data were analysed in SPSS for closed questions and thematic analysis for open responses. Four semi-structured interviews with representatives of advocacy groups were completed, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. The qualitative and quantitative data's reporting rigour was guided by the CROSS and SRQR guidelines.

resultsA total of 148 participants completed the survey, and 4 interviews were completed with representatives of advocacy groups; 70.5% (n = 98) selected the correct definition of a DNACPR decision. Many survey participants overestimated the rate of survival for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. There was a strong desire for involvement and support in the decision-making process. Interviewees drew attention to poor awareness of national policy, uncertainty as to the decision-making authority of family members and difficulties in communication. Interviewees also highlighted the need for additional information concerning the nature of DNACPR and CPR.

conclusionsThe research study highlights points of weakness in the DNACPR decision-making framework for service users. While there is a desire to be involved in the DNACPR decision-making process, this is challenged by deficiencies in the understanding of CPR and uncertainty surrounding decisional authority. The decision-making framework may be strengthened by the development of accessible information and educational resources.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationCOVID-19Decision MakingHealth PolicyResuscitation OrdersAdultFemaleHumansIrelandMaleMiddle AgedPatient AdvocacyQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesAdvance care planningAutonomyDecision-makingDo not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitationEnd-of-life

Identifiers

PMID40186226
PMCPMC11969821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.