Ethics, orthodoxies and defensive practice: a cross-sectional survey of nurse's decision-making surrounding CPR in deceased inpatients without Do Not Resuscitate orders.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Gemma McErlean, Suzanne Bowdler, Joanne Cordina, Heidi Hui, Edwina Light, Wendy Lipworth, Susan Maitland, Eamon Merrick, Amy Montgomery, Anne Preisz, Linda Sheahan, Suzanne Sheppard-Law, George Skowronski, Cameron Stewart, Judeil Krlan Teus, Michael Watts, Sahn Zanotti, Ian Kerridge
{"title":"Ethics, orthodoxies and defensive practice: a cross-sectional survey of nurse's decision-making surrounding CPR in deceased inpatients without Do Not Resuscitate orders.","authors":"Gemma McErlean, Suzanne Bowdler, Joanne Cordina, Heidi Hui, Edwina Light, Wendy Lipworth, Susan Maitland, Eamon Merrick, Amy Montgomery, Anne Preisz, Linda Sheahan, Suzanne Sheppard-Law, George Skowronski, Cameron Stewart, Judeil Krlan Teus, Michael Watts, Sahn Zanotti, Ian Kerridge","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01224-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In hospital, nurses are often the first to identify patients in cardiorespiratory arrest and must decide whether to call a CODE BLUE and commence cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In Australia, there are no legal or policy obligations to commence CPR when unequivocal signs of death are present. The use of CPR where it cannot provide any benefit to a patient raises profound questions about decision-making and ethical practice. The aim of this empirical ethics study was to describe hospital-based nurses' decision-making, perspectives, and experiences of initiating CPR in hospitalised patients who have unequivocal signs of death but lack a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was a multisite cross-sectional descriptive survey conducted between October 2023-April 2024. Nurses were presented with two clinical scenarios in which patients were found to have no signs of life: Mr. D, an 84-year-old male with cancer, and Mr. G, a 35-year-old male post-motor vehicle accident. Eligible participants were all nurses working in in-patient units. Descriptive statistics, Pearson Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, McNemar test, and binomial logistic regression were used to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>531 nurses completed the survey. For Mr D, 61.5% (n = 324) would call a CODE BLUE, 24.1% (n = 127) would perform limited CPR. Only 14.4% (n = 76) would confirm death. For Mr G, 93.9% (n = 492) would call a CODE BLUE, 4.4% (n = 23) would perform limited CPR, and 1.7% (n = 9) would confirm death. The major reasons why nurses initiate a CODE BLUE were 'In the absence of an DNR order, there is no option but to begin CPR', 'I am required by hospital policy to do so', 'I am required by law to do so' and 'It is what I was trained to do'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most nurses would commence CPR in patients with clear signs of death in the absence of a DNR order. This seems most likely related to ignorance or misunderstanding of law, policy and/or the misapplication or professional norms. These results raise important questions about the drivers of nurses understanding of and engagement with CPR. This highlights ethical concerns for care and treatment of patients at the end of their life and underscores the need to examine ethical practice, agency, and professionalism and supports review of policy, practices and education regarding ethical end-of-life decision making and care.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"65"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12090638/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01224-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In hospital, nurses are often the first to identify patients in cardiorespiratory arrest and must decide whether to call a CODE BLUE and commence cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In Australia, there are no legal or policy obligations to commence CPR when unequivocal signs of death are present. The use of CPR where it cannot provide any benefit to a patient raises profound questions about decision-making and ethical practice. The aim of this empirical ethics study was to describe hospital-based nurses' decision-making, perspectives, and experiences of initiating CPR in hospitalised patients who have unequivocal signs of death but lack a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order.

Methods: The study was a multisite cross-sectional descriptive survey conducted between October 2023-April 2024. Nurses were presented with two clinical scenarios in which patients were found to have no signs of life: Mr. D, an 84-year-old male with cancer, and Mr. G, a 35-year-old male post-motor vehicle accident. Eligible participants were all nurses working in in-patient units. Descriptive statistics, Pearson Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, McNemar test, and binomial logistic regression were used to analyse the data.

Results: 531 nurses completed the survey. For Mr D, 61.5% (n = 324) would call a CODE BLUE, 24.1% (n = 127) would perform limited CPR. Only 14.4% (n = 76) would confirm death. For Mr G, 93.9% (n = 492) would call a CODE BLUE, 4.4% (n = 23) would perform limited CPR, and 1.7% (n = 9) would confirm death. The major reasons why nurses initiate a CODE BLUE were 'In the absence of an DNR order, there is no option but to begin CPR', 'I am required by hospital policy to do so', 'I am required by law to do so' and 'It is what I was trained to do'.

Conclusions: Most nurses would commence CPR in patients with clear signs of death in the absence of a DNR order. This seems most likely related to ignorance or misunderstanding of law, policy and/or the misapplication or professional norms. These results raise important questions about the drivers of nurses understanding of and engagement with CPR. This highlights ethical concerns for care and treatment of patients at the end of their life and underscores the need to examine ethical practice, agency, and professionalism and supports review of policy, practices and education regarding ethical end-of-life decision making and care.

伦理、正统观念和防御实践:护士在没有不复苏命令的死亡住院患者心肺复苏术决策的横断面调查。
背景:在医院里,护士通常是第一个识别心肺骤停患者的人,必须决定是否拨打蓝色警报并开始心肺复苏(CPR)。在澳大利亚,当出现明确的死亡迹象时,没有法律或政策义务开始心肺复苏术。在心肺复苏术不能给病人带来任何好处的情况下使用它,引发了有关决策和道德实践的深刻问题。本实证伦理学研究的目的是描述医院护士对有明确死亡迹象但缺乏不复苏(DNR)令的住院患者启动心肺复苏术的决策、观点和经验。方法:采用多地点横断面描述性调查,于2023年10月~ 2024年4月进行。护士被告知两种临床情况,其中患者被发现没有生命迹象:D先生,84岁的癌症男性,和G先生,35岁的车祸后男性。符合条件的参与者都是在住院部工作的护士。采用描述性统计、Pearson卡方检验或Fisher精确检验、McNemar检验和二项逻辑回归对数据进行分析。结果:531名护士完成调查。对于D先生,61.5% (n = 324)会拨打蓝色警报,24.1% (n = 127)会进行有限的心肺复苏术。只有14.4% (n = 76)确认死亡。对于G先生,93.9% (n = 492)会拨打蓝色警报,4.4% (n = 23)会进行有限的心肺复苏术,1.7% (n = 9)会确认死亡。护士启动“蓝色代码”的主要原因是“在没有DNR命令的情况下,别无选择,只能开始心肺复苏术”、“医院政策要求我这样做”、“法律要求我这样做”和“这是我接受的培训”。结论:大多数护士会在没有DNR命令的情况下对有明显死亡迹象的患者进行心肺复苏术。这似乎很可能与对法律、政策和/或专业规范的无知或误解有关。这些结果提出了关于护士理解和参与心肺复苏的驱动因素的重要问题。这突出了患者临终关怀和治疗的伦理问题,强调了检查伦理实践、机构和专业精神的必要性,并支持审查有关临终关怀和伦理决策的政策、实践和教育。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信