Sorry - what exactly is being suggested here? 'Shouldn't judge'? Is conducting these conversations not now established to be a lawful requirement?
@katemasters67
#HSJPatientSafetyhttps://twitter.com/braemar88/status/1016283271288819714 …
-
-
I don’t think anyone is saying not to do it; what I / we are asking is to support staff properly. You wouldn’t ask the dermatologist to give a GA. However the dermatologist might retrain, and be well supported during the training, in anaesthesia.

-
DNACPR isn’t anyone’s speciality, could that be part of the problem?
-
That's true, but this is not really a change of discipline for me. All treating clinicians must be able to communicate relevant info to pts already. For consent, if nothing else. If discussing death is the problem, then maybe the insurance industry can help - they do it every day
-
Or the funeral industry, or crematorium staff.
-
Quite. Certainly not something I'd expect to be beyond the abilities of a trained clinician tbh. And if it is, then the training needs to be reflected upon, imho.
-
Yes – I don't see why discussing DNACPR should be more difficult than other discussions about other treatment options to plump for or not. Eg discussing not to offer surgery to someone who the clinician doesn't feel it would benefit?
-
That sounds so rational, but the reality is that it is difficult. I have spoken with surgeons who are totally fine with not offering surgery as won’t help (and patient likely to die), but still want patients to have CPR.

-
Eh? Even - to borrow a phrase - where it's considered clinically futile? Why? What am I missing?
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.