Cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with patients admitted to acute oncology wards: A national audit of current practice.

OBJECTIVES: To map current practice regarding discussions around resuscitation across England and Scotland in patients with cancer admitted acutely to hospital and to demonstrate the value of medical students in rapidly collecting national audit data. METHODS: Collaborators from the Macmillan medical student network collected data from 251 patient encounters across eight hospitals in England and Scotland. Data were collected to identify whether discussion regarding resuscitation was documented as having taken place during inpatient admission to acute oncology. As an audit standard, it was expected that all patients should be invited to discuss resuscitation within 24 hr of admission. RESULTS: Resuscitation discussions were had in 43.1% of admissions and of these 64.0% were within 24 hr; 27.6% of all admissions. 6.5% of patients had a "do not attempt resuscitation" order prior to admission with a difference noted between patients receiving palliative and curative treatment (8.5% and 0.39%, respectively, p < .05). Discussions regarding escalation of care took place in only 29.3% of admissions. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight deficiencies in the number of discussions regarding resuscitation that are being conducted with cancer patients that become acutely unwell. It also demonstrates the value of medical student collaboration in rapidly collecting national audit data.

Improving the quality of inpatient discharge summaries.

BACKGROUND: Discharge summaries (DCS) are vital in facilitating handover to community colleagues. Unfortunately, at Whittington Health, General Practitioners (GPs) found it difficult to identify relevant information in DCS, and use of medical jargon meant patients did not understand details of their admission. With this quality improvement project, the team aimed to improve DCS to enhance patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this quality improvement project (QIP) was to improve the quality of DCS by critiquing the ones produced within our trust and implementing various interventions. METHODS: Multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were completed. A multi-disciplinary meeting was conducted to identify the needs of each party in a DCS. A new template was subsequently launched. Teaching was conducted and educational leaflets were disseminated hospital-wide. Quality of written communication was audited quarterly, and evaluated against quality indicators. Problems with DCS were identified via GP and patient feedback, and these became the focus of subsequent PDSA cycles. RESULTS: From March 2019 to February 2020, all the audited categories improved, with an overall improvement from 67% to 92%. We also received positive feedback from GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of DCS can be improved with appropriate interventions, leading to improved patient care. A similar PDSA cycle could be utilized elsewhere to achieve similar results.