Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation decisions : an evidence synthesis

Background: Cardiac arrest is the final common step in the dying process. In the right context, resuscitation can reverse the dying process, yet success rates are low. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a highly invasive medical treatment, which, if applied in the wrong setting, can deprive the patient of dignified death. Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions provide a mechanism to withhold CPR. Recent scientific and lay press reports suggest that the implementation of DNACPR decisions in NHS practice is problematic. Aims and objectives: This project sought to identify reasons why conflict and complaints arise, identify inconsistencies in NHS trusts’ implementation of national guidelines, understand health professionals’ experience in relation to DNACPR, its process and ethical challenges, and explore the literature for evidence to improve DNACPR policy and practice. Methods: A systematic review synthesised evidence of processes, barriers and facilitators related to DNACPR decision-making and implementation. Reports from NHS trusts, the National Reporting and Learning System, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Office of the Chief Coroner, trust resuscitation policies and telephone calls to a patient information line were reviewed. Multiple focus groups explored service-provider perspectives on DNACPR decisions. A stakeholder group discussed the research findings and identified priorities for future research. Results: The literature review found evidence that structured discussions at admission to hospital or following deterioration improved patient involvement and decision-making. Linking DNACPR to overall treatment plans improved clarity about goals of care, aided communication and reduced harms. Standardised documentation improved the frequency and quality of recording decisions. Approximately 1500 DNACPR incidents are reported annually. One-third of these report harms, including some instances of death. Problems with communication and variation in trusts’ implementation of national guidelines were common. Members of the public were concerned that their wishes with regard to resuscitation would not be respected. Clinicians felt that DNACPR decisions should be considered within the overall care of individual patients. Some clinicians avoid raising discussions about CPR for fear of conflict or complaint. A key theme across all focus groups, and reinforced by the literature review, was the negative impact on overall patient care of having a DNACPR decision and the conflation of ‘do not resuscitate’ with ‘do not provide active treatment’. Limitations: The variable quality of some data sources allows potential overstatement or understatement of findings. However, data source triangulation identified common issues. Conclusion: There is evidence of variation and suboptimal practice in relation to DNACPR decisions across health-care settings. There were deficiencies in considering, discussing and implementing the decision, as well as unintended consequences of DNACPR decisions being made on other aspects of patient care. Future work: Recommendations supported by the stakeholder group are standardising NHS policies and forms, ensuring cross-boundary recognition of DNACPR decisions, integrating decisions with overall treatment plans and developing tools and training strategies to support clinician and patient decision-making, including improving communication. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002669. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Beyond Legalism in Turbulent Times: Re-grounding UK Social Work in a Richer International Human Rights Perspective

Human rights have always been intrinsically woven into social work, but in the UK, often in a way that is either vague or wholly legalistic. In this article, we make a case for embedding a broader and richer concept of human rights in UK social work practice and education. We contrast the international social work perspective on human rights with that of UK professional codes and suggest that the narrow and uninterrogated conceptualisation of human rights in the UK may be acting as a barrier to UK social workers fully understanding and engaging with broader human rights agendas of the sort found in international practice. We argue for the merits of regrounding UK social work in this broader human rights concept, in which radical and emancipatory approaches can be underpinned by a common and unifying rights-orientated perspective. We make this argument, initially, in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998 remaining in UK law, which we see as entirely necessary for the protection of human rights in social work in the country, but insufficient for a broader, richer concept. We also, however, consider a scenario in which the Act is replaced by a British Bill of Rights and argue that such a development would present a further urgent need for embedding a broader human rights concept in UK social work. We close by setting out some of what such a concept might involve

Vitamins and minerals: issues associated with too low and too high population intakes

There is an ongoing increase in the availability of foods fortified with micronutrients and dietary supplements. This may result in differing intakes of micronutrients within the population and perhaps larger differences in intakes. Insight into population micronutrient intakes and evaluation of too low or too high intakes is required to see whether there are potential problems regarding inadequacy or excessive intakes. Too low population intakes are evaluated against an estimated average requirement; potential too high population intakes are evaluated against a tolerable upper intake level (UL). Additional health effects, seriousness, and incidence of these health effects are not considered but these can be taken into account in a benefit-risk assessment. Furthermore, authorities would like to regulate food fortification and supplementation in such a way that most of the population is not at risk of potentially high intakes. Several models are available for estimating maximum levels of micronutrients for food fortification and dietary supplements. Policy makers and risk managers need to decide how to divide the ‘free space’ between food fortification and/or dietary supplements, while protecting populations from adverse health effects

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a human rights based approach to dementia care in inpatient ward and care home settings

BackgroundAlthough it is widely recognised that adopting a person-centred approach is beneficial in the care of people living with dementia, a gap remains between the rhetoric and the reality of quality care. Some widely adopted care practices can result in the personhood of this group being threatened and their human rights being undermined.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of applying a human rights based approach in dementia inpatient wards and care homes on the quality of care delivered and the well-being of the person living with dementia.DesignA cluster randomised design was employed to compare the impact of implementing a human rights based approach intervention (i.e. training, applying the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool and receiving booster sessions) at 10 intervention sites with 10 control sites.SettingEight NHS dementia inpatient wards and 12 care homes in the north-west of England.ParticipantsPeople living with dementia who were residing on dementia inpatient wards or in care homes, and staff working at these sites. The aim was to recruit 280 people living with dementia.InterventionsA sample of staff (an average of 8.9 per site) at each of the sites was trained in a human rights based approach to care, including the application of the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool. The tool was then introduced at the site and monthly booster sessions were delivered.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure used in the research was the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease scale to assess the subjective well-being of the person with dementia. Secondary outcome measures included measures of the quality of care provided (dementia care mapping) and direct measures of the effectiveness of the training in increasing knowledge of and attitudes towards human rights. The study also included an economic evaluation utilising the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit measure.ResultsThe study recruited 439 people living with dementia: 213 to the intervention arm and 226 to the control arm. Primary outcome data were analysed using a linear mixed model. There were no significant differences found in the reported quality of life of residents between the control and intervention groups after the intervention [F(1,16.51) = 3.63;p = 0.074]. The mean difference between the groups was 1.48 (95% confidence interval –7.86 to 10.82).ConclusionsDespite the fact that the training increased staff knowledge of and positive attitudes towards human rights, and although there were some changes in staff decision-making strategies in clinical situations, there was no change in the quality of care provided or in the reported well-being of people living with dementia in these settings. This led to questions about the efficacy of training in bringing about cultural change and improving care practices.LimitationsThere was limited uptake of the training and booster sessions that were integral to the intervention.Future workFuture work could usefully focus on understanding the difficulty in translating change in attitude and knowledge into behaviour.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN94553028.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</jats:sec

Nothing to hide 50 years of the case for sharing sovereignty

Foreword by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, introduction by Professor Vernon BogdanorAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m01/37099 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Business in the information age International benchmarking study 2002

Title from coverAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:m03/10318 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

The case for the euro

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/29609 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

The European Union today

Available from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m01/30607 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo