Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-j65dx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T06:26:45.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

DNACPR Documentation Audit on Old Age Psychiatry Wards in Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (ABUHB) in South Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Amr Romeh
Affiliation:
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Caerphilly, United Kingdom
Gianluca Mosaico
Affiliation:
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Caerphilly, United Kingdom
Mohammed Elhusseiny
Affiliation:
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Caerphilly, United Kingdom
Peter Boyle
Affiliation:
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Caerphilly, United Kingdom
Tanbir Kalam
Affiliation:
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Caerphilly, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: DNACPR All-Wales policy for adults was launched in 2015 by the deputy minister for Health. It was revised in 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2024. DNACPR decisions should be clearly recorded and communicated between health professionals.

This audit aims at assessing the quality of DNACPR on older adult psychiatric wards in ABUHB to identify any deficits and to improve the quality of documentation in the future.

Methods: Inpatients’ notes from all four old age psychiatry wards in ABUHB were examined; patients with DNACPR were identified. To gather data, we created an audit tool based on all-Wales policy.

Results: 24 DNACPR decision forms were identified.

“Decision date” was missed in 2 forms.

DNACPR decision was not clearly “signed with date and time” in 1 form.

In 10 forms, decision was not “documented in clinical notes” because the decision was made by another team and their notes were not available to examine.

“Discussion with patient” only took place in 9 forms while “discussion with IMCA/attorney or family/carers” took place in 20 forms.

“Patient demographic details” were recorded in all forms but with some errors; one patient’s name was incorrectly spelt and one patient had missing details.

For “reason of decision”, 1 was “not in the best interest, natural anticipated and accepted death and patient refused CPR”, 1 was “patient refused CPR” and 1 had no stated reason. The remaining 21 forms stated “not in the best interest”.

For “signatures in section 5 and section 6” where section 5 is for “the health care professional completing the form” while section 6 is for “the senior responsible clinician”. The signatures were appropriate in 17 forms. 7 forms were not countersigned in section 6; 5 of these are signed in section 5 by a consultant while 1 is signed by a junior doctor and 1 is signed by a registered nurse.

Different versions of the DNACPR form were being used in some instances.

Conclusion: Identified deficits represent deficient forms which could lead to inappropriate CPR attempts. This could lead to physical and emotional distress and possible litigation.

To avoid this, our audit concludes that DNACPR forms must be completed thoroughly and that a unified version of DNACPR form is to be used. It is also good practice to document the DNACPR discussion in the clinical notes of the patients.

As secondary outcomes, we recommended to add DNACPR status and treatment escalation plan status to our ward round proforma.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.