Search

Background Ascertaining and discussing resuscitation status should be a routine part of medical practice. However, it is frequently neglected until a patient is acutely unwell. The National Consent Policy1 recommends that discussion around “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) orders should occur for patients with “an identifiable risk of cardiorespiratory arrest occurring”. The Clinical Frailty Scale is a useful tool for providing predictive information about the risk of death in older patients2. Along with the presence of comorbidities, it can assist with determining prognosis and identifying patients for whom early discussion about resuscitation status is appropriate. Methods A chart review was carried out of all 106 inpatients in a model 3 hospital. Data was extracted on demographic information, frailty score and resuscitation status. Results The average age of inpatients was 79.8 years. On admission, the average Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (mildly frail), with 15% having a frailty score of 7 or more, and 28% a diagnosis of dementia. 25.5% of inpatients had a DNACPR order in place. It took an average of 32.4 days (range 0-224 days) from admission until this decision was made. Conclusion As we are caring for an older population with frailty; care planning, including resuscitation status should be discussed at an earlier stage. Ideally, this should occur on admission for certain patients, particularly those with high levels of frailty and multiple comorbidities. Our current practice, in which DNACPR decisions sometimes take place after a prolonged admission, is suboptimal. A change to the medical admission proforma, adding a prompt for discussion of DNACPR orders will be considered.

Geriatricians are often asked to make decisions about withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This seems to be becoming more difficult and more controversial. There has been increased public concern about this subject recently and a recognition within the profession of the need for more openness and transparency in decision making. The implementation of The Human Rights Act led to updated guidelines from professional bodies, but these are likely to need careful interpretation in light of local circumstances before they can become a practical tool for decision making.