The impact of language on the interpretation of resuscitation clinical care plans by doctors. A mixed methods study

IntroductionResuscitation clinical care plans (resuscitation plans) are gradually replacing ‘Not for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ orders in the hospital setting. The 7-Step Pathway Resuscitation Plan and Alert form (7-Step form) is one example of a resuscitation plan. Treatment recommendations in resuscitation plans currently lack standardised language, creating potential for misinterpretation and patient harm.AimsTo explore how terminology used in resuscitation plans is interpreted and applied by clinicians.MethodA mixed methods study surveyed 50 general medical doctors, who were required to interpret and apply a 7-Step form in three case vignettes and define seven key terms. Statistical analysis on multiple choice and thematic analysis on free-text responses was performed.ResultsTerminology was inconsistently interpreted and inconsistently applied, resulting in clinically significant differences in treatment choices. Three key themes influenced the application of a resuscitation plan: in-depth discussion, precise documentation and personal experience of the bedside deciding doctor.DiscussionThis study highlights persistent communication deficiencies in resuscitation plan documentation and how this may adversely affect patient care; findings unlikely to be unique to Australia or South Australia.ConclusionRemoving ambiguity by standardising and defining the terminology in resuscitation plans will improve bedside decision-making, while also supporting the rights of the patient to receive appropriate and desired care.