To withhold resuscitation - The Swedish system's rules and challenges.
DNACPR
DNAR
IHCA
Journal
Resuscitation plus
ISSN: 2666-5204
Titre abrégé: Resusc Plus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101774410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this article is to describe current Swedish legalisation, clinical practice and future perspectives on the medical ethical decision "Do-Not-Attempt-Cardio-Pulmonary-Resuscitation" (DNACPR) in relation to prevent futile resuscitation of in-hospital cardiac arrests. Sweden has about 2200 in-hospital cardiac arrests yearly, with an overall 30-day survival ratio of 35%. This population is highly selected, although the frequency of DNACPR orders for hospitalized patients is unknown, resuscitation is initiated in only 6-13% of patients dying in Swedish hospitals. According to Swedish law and although shared decision making is sought, the physician is the ultimate decision-maker and consultation with the patient, her relatives and another licenced health care practitioner is mandatory. According to studies, these consultations is documented in only about 10% of the decisions. Clinicians lack tools to assess risk of IHCA, tools to predict outcome and we are not good at guessing patients own will. Future directives for clinical practice need to address difficulties for physicians in making decisions as well as the timing of decisions. We conclude that the principles in Swedish law needs to be fulfilled by a more systematic approach to documentation and planning of meetings between patients, relatives and colleagues.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38026137
doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100501
pii: S2666-5204(23)00144-3
pmc: PMC10665955
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100501Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Resuscitation. 2006 May;69(2):235-9
pubmed: 16458410
Resuscitation. 2005 Jun;65(3):291-9
pubmed: 15919565
Resusc Plus. 2023 Aug 19;15:100451
pubmed: 37662640
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 May;64(5):656-662
pubmed: 31954072
Eur Heart J. 2022 Dec 7;43(46):4817-4829
pubmed: 35924401
Resusc Plus. 2022 Feb 04;9:100209
pubmed: 35169759
Resuscitation. 2017 Sep;118:101-106
pubmed: 28736324
Geriatrics (Basel). 2019 May 03;4(2):
pubmed: 31058832
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Aug 1;21(1):67
pubmed: 32738915
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 19;10(3):e032264
pubmed: 32198299
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000 May;48(S1):S187-93
pubmed: 10809474
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Mar 30;22(1):34
pubmed: 33785001
Resuscitation. 2018 Jun;127:147-163
pubmed: 29706235
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 Sep;65(8):1102-1108
pubmed: 33964009
Resusc Plus. 2021 Apr 29;6:100128
pubmed: 34223385
Resuscitation. 2021 Apr;161:408-432
pubmed: 33773832
Resuscitation. 2022 Oct;179:233-242
pubmed: 35843406
Lakartidningen. 2020 Mar 23;117:
pubmed: 32253747
Lakartidningen. 2021 Feb 24;118:
pubmed: 33624272
Resuscitation. 2021 Apr;161:61-79
pubmed: 33773833
Resuscitation. 2022 Oct;179:141-151
pubmed: 35933060
J Gen Intern Med. 1996 Jan;11(1):16-22
pubmed: 8691282
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 21;13(11):e0206550
pubmed: 30462673