Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Not much is known about Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation (DNAR) decision-making for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). The aim of this study was to clarify the problems and pitfalls of non-emergency DNAR decision-making for people with IDs, from the perspective of ID physicians. METHODS: This qualitative study was based on semi-structured individual interviews, focus group interviews and an expert meeting, all recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Forty ID physicians and trainees were interviewed about problems, pitfalls and dilemmas of DNAR decision-making for people with IDs in the Netherlands. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory procedures. RESULTS: The core category identified was 'Patient-related considerations when issuing DNAR orders'. Within this category, medical considerations were the main contributory factor for the ID physicians. Evaluation of quality of life was left to the relatives and was sometimes a cause of conflicts between physicians and relatives. The category of 'The decision-maker role' was as important as that of 'The decision procedure in an organisational context'. The procedure of issuing a non-emergency DNAR order and the embedding of this procedure in the health care organisation were important for the ID physicians. CONCLUSION: The theory we developed clarifies that DNAR decision-making for people with IDs is complex and causes uncertainties. This theory offers a sound basis for training courses for physicians to deal with uncertainties regarding DNAR decision-making, as well as a method for advance care planning. Health care organisations are strongly advised to implement a procedure regarding DNAR decision-making.

Item does not contain fulltext, Background: Not much is known about the process of end-of-life decision-making for people with intellectual disabilities. Aim: To clarify the process of end-of-life decision-making for people with intellectual disabilities from the perspective of patient representatives. Design: A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews, recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory procedures. Participants: We interviewed 16 patient representatives after the deaths of 10 people with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands. Results: The core category 'Deciding for someone else' describes the context in which patient representatives took end-of-life decisions. The patient representatives felt highly responsible for the outcomes. They had not involved the patients in the end-of-life decision-making process, nor any professionals other than the doctor. The categories of 'Motives' and 'Support' were connected to the core category of 'Deciding for someone else'. 'Motives' refers to the patient representatives' ideas about quality of life, prevention from suffering, patients who cannot understand the burden of interventions and emotional reasons reported by patient representatives. 'Support' refers to the support that patient representatives wanted the doctors to give to them in the decision-making process. Conclusions: From the perspective of the patient representatives, the process of end-of-life decision-making can be improved by ensuring clear roles and an explicit description of the tasks and responsibilities of all participants. Regular discussion between everyone involved including people with intellectual disabilities themselves can improve knowledge about each other's motives for end-of-decisions and can clarify expectations towards each other.