You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Review
CPR decision-making conversations in the UK: an integrative review
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 18 July 2019
    DNACPR- a medical decision?

    This was a very interesting article. As a professional with frequent intensive care duties early discussions about patient’s wishes are best. Ideally, these should take place away from the acute setting. This is what we always hope to have for our unconscious patients being admitted to the unit.

    Unfortunately, these discussions are a bonus rather than routine practice even in end stage disease. Perhaps this partly explains the difference in expectation between the medical team and the family. This leads to management disagreements. It is not uncommon to hear a family “wanting everything doing” for their loved ones in a DNACPR conversation.

    In our training we have always been taught that DNACPR is a medical decision. It is good practice nevertheless to communicate any such major management decisions to the family. Nevertheless, there appears to be a move towards completely patient/family centred care. There are multiple occasions a DNACPR is not put in place as the family will not agree, despite a consensus among multiple consultants.

    In this climate, with the family often seen as the representative of the patient without capacity, is a DNACPR decision still a medical decision?

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.