![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not for Resuscitation Orders—clarification is
needed
Debate surrounding decisions not to attempt cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) continues to inflame opinion and attract controversy. This
is illustrated by the case of Janet Tracey where issues surrounding
communication have led to the family taking legal action against
Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.1
A recent survey of medical, surgical and orthopaedic medical
and nursing staff demonstrated that Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders
may be interpreted as limiting other forms of care in addition to CPR . This was
particularly true in more junior members of
staff.2
We believe that hospitals and institutions caring for an
elderly population should be using the terminology Do Not Attempt
CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (DNA-CPR) on documents indicating CPR is not
appropriate. This is a move which has been endorsed by the National Health
Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom in an attempt to aid communication with
staff, patients and relatives.
There is a need for good communication and clarity regarding
issues surrounding end-of-life care. The use of the term DNA-CPR is more
specific than DNAR and should be the preferred term for use in patient records
and order forms.
John Tolliday and Hermione Denniss
Medical Registrars at Hutt Valley Hospital, Lower Hutt, New Zealand References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |