55 Quality Improvement Project to Assess How Informed Patients are About do not Attempt Cardiopulmonary (DNACPR) Decisions?

Abstract Introduction Despite growing evidence regarding DNACPR decisions, there is a paucity of information given to patients regarding resuscitation decisions. The main aim of this quality improvement project was to assess and improve patients’ and their relatives’ understanding about DNACPR decisions. Intervention We initially surveyed 30 inpatients or their next-of-kin (if the patient lacked capacity) in a geriatric ward who had DNACPR decisions in place. Although, 86% knew the implications of a DNACPR decision, only 50% knew that a DNACPR decision would not limit them from receiving other treatment. 66% reported that the information given by the healthcare professional is “too little”. 35 questionnaires were also given to doctors of all grades to assess their practice of DNACPR discussions and barriers for discussion. Majority (95%) of doctors knew what should be included in a DNACPR discussion. Medical staff not considering DNACPR discussions during assessment, medical staff not comfortable to make the DNACPR decision and the fear of distressing the patient are the three main issues that were highlighted as barriers. 17% of doctors reported that they would have attended a cardiac arrest at least on 2-5 occasions for a patient when resuscitation was futile. We presented this data and educated doctors on effective DNACPR discussions using video demonstrations in weekly journal clubs. All doctors were informed to distribute DNACPR Improvement After the intervention, only 80% understood the DNACPR discussion. 76% knew that DNACPR does not limit them from receiving other treatment. 73% reported that this was not stressful and 76% were satisfied with the discussion and reported that their questions were answered adequately. 11 out of 30 patients had received the information leaflets and all found it useful. Discussion Although after the intervention the percentage who understood the DNACPR decision had reduced compared to the initial audit, there was a 20% improvement in who knew that DNACPR decisions did not limit other treatment. We hope to extend this study by carrying out training sessions for doctors to improve the quality of these conversations and thereby enhance adherence to expected practice in DNACPR decision making.

Download Full-text

Assessing the practice of written referrals to neuroradiology and how this process can be improved and standardised

BJPsych Open ◽

10.1192/bjo.2021.492 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (S1) ◽

pp. S181-S182

Author(s):

Fraser Currie ◽

Rashi Negi ◽

Hari Shanmugaratnam

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Scoring Systems ◽

Quality Improvement Project ◽

Cortical Atrophy ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

Quality Of Information ◽

Improvement Project

AimsThis quality improvement project aims to improve the quality of information provided in the referrals from the older adult psychiatry department to radiology when requesting neuroradiological imaging.The secondary outcome aims to standardise information on the referral proforma. We hypothesise that this improved referral proforma will lead to improved quality of reporting from the radiology department, which will form the second stage of this quality improvement project.A further area of interest of this exercise is to establish whether standardised radiological scoring systems are requested in the referral, as these can be utilised as a means to standardise reported information.MethodRetrospective electronic case analysis was performed on 50 consecutive radiology referrals for a period of 3 months from November 2019 to January 2020. Data were obtained from generic MRI and CT referral proforma and entered into a specifically designed data collection tool. Recorded were patient demographics, provisional diagnosis, modality of imaging, use of ACE-III cognitive score, radiological scoring systems, and inclusion and exclusion criteria.ResultResults from 50 referrals have shown: 60% were male, 40% female. Average patient age of 74, ranging from 49 to 95. 58% were referred for CT head with 42% for MRI head. More than half of referrals quoted the ACE-III score. 26% of referrals stated exclusion criteria such as space occupying lesions, haemorrhages or infarcts. 10% of referrals requested specific neuro-radiological scoring scales. Specific scales which were requested included GCA (global cortical atrophy), MTA scale (medial temporal atrophy), Koedam scale (evidence of parietal atrophy) and Fazekas (evidence of vascular changes). Only 80% of referrals included the patients GP details on the referral form.Conclusion1. This quality improvement initiative has highlighted that the current level of information in referring patient to radiology is variable and dependent on the referrer.2. All referrals should state exclusion criteria as per the NICE guidelines on neuroimaging in diagnosis of dementia.3. Preliminary evidence suggests that requesting specific radiological rating scales could improve the quality of information received in the imaging report. The second part of this quality improvement initiative will aim to explore the impact of requesting these scales routinely.

Download Full-text