Search

Background Given the globally ageing population, care homes have an important role in delivering palliative and end-of-life care. Advance care planning (ACP) is promoted to improve the quality of end-of-life care in this setting. While many professionals can be involved in ACP, little is known about what influences multi-professional involvement and how multi-professional working impacts the ACP process in the UK. This study investigated multi-professional practice in relation to ACP in nursing homes. Design and methods An ethnography was undertaken in two UK nursing homes using multiple methods of data collection: observations, interviews and document review. Participants included the following: nursing home residents (n  = 6), relatives (n  = 4), nursing home staff (n  = 19), and visiting health and social care professionals (n  = 7). Analysis integrated thematic analysis, mapping of resident ACP trajectories and documentary analysis. Findings This paper suggests that multi-professional and relatives' involvement in ACP was disjointed. Continuity and coordination were disrupted by misalignment of visiting professional and nursing home organisational structures. Findings show a 'knotworking' approach to teamwork and power imbalance between nursing home staff and visiting professionals, such as general practitioners. While residents wished their relatives to be involved in their ACP, this was not formally recognised, and limited support existed to facilitate their involvement. Conclusion The structure and organisation of multi-professional and relatives' involvement in ACP led to fragmentation of the process. This marginalised the voice of both the resident and nursing home staff, thereby limiting ACP as a tool to enhance quality of end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background COVID-19 brought additional challenges to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision-making, which was already a contentious issue. In the UK, reports of poor DNACPR decision-making and communication emerged in 2020, including from the regulator, the Care Quality Commission. This paper explores the experiences of people who discussed DNACPR with a healthcare professional on behalf of a relative during the coronavirus pandemic, with the aim of identifying areas of good practice and what needs to be improved. Methods a total of 39 people participated in semi-structured interviews via video conferencing software or telephone. Data were evaluated using Framework Analysis. Findings results are presented around three main themes: understanding, communication and impact. Participants' understanding about DNACPR was important, as those with better understanding tended to reflect more positively on their discussions with clinicians. The role of relatives in the decision-making process was a frequent source of misunderstanding. Healthcare professionals' communication skills were important. Where discussions went well, relatives were given clear explanations and the opportunity to ask questions. However many relatives felt that conversations were rushed. DNACPR discussions can have a lasting impact—relatives reported them to be significant moments in care journeys. Many relatives perceived that they were asked to decide whether their relative should receive CPR and described enduring emotional consequences, including guilt. Conclusion the pandemic has illuminated deficiencies in current practice around DNACPR discussion, which can have difficult to anticipate and lasting negative consequences for relatives. This research raises questions about the current approach to DNACPR decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]