Making and documenting good decisions about CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and treatment escalation plans, that are truly shared decisions, is a challenge. I find that the challenge comes from a number of factors: intrinsic difficulties of talking about the possibility of death in a largely death-denying culture; the great diversity of beliefs, wishes, and level of preparation for such decisions amongst patients; difficulties in facing my own mortality and the ways in which personal situations may affect my professional abilities; navigating tensions between hope and acceptance; and additional complexities that stem from having such conversations in the context of an emergency hospital admission. In the midst of a busy shift, faced with distressed people who are in pain, sometimes it is hard to find the words.
A number of recent cases have highlighted concerns about the process of resuscitation decision making and documentation. In particular, people have been distressed by the fact that DNACPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) orders have being placed in their records without an explicit discussion with either them or their family. The High Court Ruling on R (David Tracey) vs 1) Cambridge University Hospitals 2) Secretary of State for Health forced the medical profession to face up to residual paternalism in this area of practice, and to make changes. It prompted some important reflections amongst individuals, teams and institutions and I have seen a noticeable difference in practice since the ruling, which reinforced the legal duty to discuss decisions about care with patients, particularly DNACPR decisions.