Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03195725

How is the Term 'Harm' Being Interpreted and Documented on Hospice DNACPR Forms Following the Tracey Judgement?

To investigate how discussions surrounding Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions have changed following the Tracey judgement and how "harm" is being defined by clinicians working within specialist palliative care in a hospice setting.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Compton Hospice

Wolverhampton, WV3 9DH, United Kingdom

About this study

This is a retrospective case note review. Five hospices within the West Midlands will be invited to participate and up to 300 sets of deceased patients' notes containing a DNACPR form will be reviewed; 150 from 2013 (prior to the Tracey judgement) and 150 from 2015 (following the Tracey judgement).

Initially these forms will be reviewed to document the percentage of patients with whom a DNACPR decision was discussed in 2013 and the percentage with whom it was discussed in 2015 to allow comparison from before the Tracey judgement and after the Tracey judgement.

If patients did NOT have DNACPR decisions discussed with them, their DNACPR forms and clinical notes will then be reviewed and the reasons documented for not involving patients in 2013 and in 2015 compared. It is anticipated that many, if not most, DNACPR decisions which were not discussed with patients in 2013 will cite "distress" as the reason but following the Tracey judgement this would not be acceptable in 2015.

Further analysis of DNACPR forms and clinical notes will then take place for those patients identified as not being involved in DNACPR discussions in 2015 (post-Tracey) to identify whether, and how, "harm" was defined by the clinician. This should be recorded on the DNACPR form or in the clinical notes.

Following data collection, quantitative analysis will be undertaken to allow comparison of percentages of DNACPR decisions discussed with patients in 2013 and 2015 followed by descriptive analysis of variation in reasons for not discussing DNACPR decisions in 2013 and 2015. This study is explorative in nature and further qualitative analysis will not be part of this research project.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients who died in 2013 or 2015 known to the individual hospice team (in-patient unit, day unit or community team)
  • Completed DNACPR form within the clinical notes which was completed in 2013 or 2015

Exclusion criteria

  • No completed DNACPR form within the clinical notes
  • DNACPR form not completed in 2013 or 2015

Treatment and study plan

Review of notes

Other

No intervention will occur

Primary outcomes

  1. The number of DNACPR decisions

    Time frame: 1 year

    • The number of DNACPR decisions which were discussed with patients in 2013 (prior to the Tracey judgement) and in 2015 (following the Tracey judgement)
  2. The reasons for not discussing DNACPR decisions

    Time frame: 1 year

    • The reasons documented on DNACPR forms and in clinical notes for not discussing DNACPR decisions in 2013 and in 2015

Secondary outcomes

  1. The documentation of the concept of 'harm' in DNACPR decisions

    Time frame: 1 year

    The documentation of the concept of 'harm' in DNACPR decisions not discussed with patients in 2015

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

Other Gov

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2017
Primary completion
2018
Study completion
2018
First posted
Jun 22, 2017
Registry last updated
Jun 19, 2019

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.