rss
Postgrad Med J 2009;85:564-568 doi:10.1136/pgmj.2009.079491
  • Ethics and law

Factors that influence decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation: the views of doctors and medical students

  1. F Tyrer1,
  2. M Williams1,
  3. L Feathers2,
  4. C Faull2,
  5. I Baker3
  1. 1
    NIHR Research Design Service for the East Midlands, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  2. 2
    Leicestershire and Rutland Hospice, Groby Road, Leicester, UK
  3. 3
    Ty Olwen, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
  1. Correspondence to F Tyrer, NIHR Research Design Service for the East Midlands, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK; fct2{at}le.ac.uk
  • Received 2 February 2009
  • Accepted 7 September 2009

Abstract

Background: A number of studies have explored doctors’ views and experiences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but to our knowledge there has been no research to identify the information that doctors take into account when they make decisions about CPR.

Purpose of study: To investigate factors that influence decisions about CPR.

Study design: Qualitative study involving six focus groups with 17 doctors and four medical students in Leicester, UK.

Results: Doctors and medical students considered a number of factors important when making decisions about CPR—namely, the patient’s diagnosis, prognosis, age, quality of life, the opinions of doctors and other medical staff, and the wishes of patients and relevant others. The relative importance of each of these factors varied significantly and was influenced by the doctors’ own beliefs and values.

Conclusions: Doctors would benefit from greater support for their decision making in relation to resuscitation to reduce variability in clinical practice and to promote appropriate patient care. Identification of factors that influence doctors’ individual beliefs, attitudes and values towards resuscitation and improvement in the quality of patient communication may help to guide policy in this area.

Footnotes

  • See Editorial, p 561

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by the Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and Peer review not commissioned; externally peer reviewed

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Services

  1. Email this link to a friend
  2. Alert me when this article is cited
  3. Alert me if a correction is posted
  4. Alert me when eletters are published
  5. Article Usage Statistics
  6. Similar articles in this journal
  7. Similar articles in Web of Science
  8. Similar articles in PubMed
  9. Add article to my folders
  10. Download to citation manager
  11. Request permissions

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
 This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of PMJ.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for PMJ. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.