CLINICAL guidance issued early in the pandemic may have led to elderly and disabled people being wrongly denied access to ventilators and critical care, researchers have said.
Advice issued for medics by the Scottish Government in April 2020 setting out how to cope in a scenario where demand for intensive care beds exceeded availability was "problematic in terms of human rights and the law, and could potentially have led to discriminatory care".
Although the guidance was later revised, academics submitting evidence as part of the Scottish Covid Inquiry said "it is not clear what impact it had" and "there is a lack of evidence on how clinical decisions regarding access to critical care were made".
They also raise concerns around "significant anecdotal evidence" of vulnerable individuals "feeling pressurised" to agree to do not resuscitate (DNR) orders and suggestions that particular groups, such as people with learning disabilities in care settings, had been placed on DNRs "when this was not clinically justified".
The findings are outlined in a paper by healthcare academics at Edinburgh Napier University, who were among those commissioned by the Inquiry chair, Lady Poole, to provide expert analysis and recommendations on areas for investigation.
Their conclusions are independent and non-binding on the inquiry.
READ MORE: Legal basis 'unclear' for 'severe restrictions' in care homes
Two Covid-19 guidance documents - 'Clinical Advice' and 'Ethical Advice and Support Framework' - were issued on April 3 2020 amid fears that hospitals could face a similar crisis to northern Italy, where hospitals were overwhelmed.
The researchers said the guidance anticipated "more restrictive prioritisation of access to critical care and particular treatments such as ventilators", but criticised a "virtual absence of any reference to human rights" and said the focus appeared to be on reassuring clinicians such decisions would not place them "in legal jeopardy".
While the guidance "encouraged" doctors to speak to patients about their care preferences - including whether they would wish to undergo CPR in the event of a cardiac arrest - this "arguably focused less on the need to maximise respect for patient autonomy, and more on ensuring that people who are perceived as less likely to benefit will agree not to be admitted to critical care".
This "potentially discriminatory approach" is mirrored, they said, in another document which asked clinicians to consider factors such as whether a patient depended on help for daily activities or was a nursing home resident "with the clear implication that these factors, whatever their cause, weigh against access to critical care".
In the end, lockdown slowed the spread of the virus and Scotland's ICU surge capacity exceeded demand during the first wave.
However, the researchers said it remains unclear whether the guidance had "a real world effect" in terms of some people being "wrongly denied access to treatment".
The paper also calls for the Inquiry to investigate whether DNR orders were applied inappropriately, pointing to examples where an 86-year-old woman with dementia was reportedly asked to consent to an DNR out of the blue in a telephone call from a locum GP.
Other cases include a deaf man in his 60s living in supported accommodation who was placed on a DNR without his knowledge, and a patient "apparently placed on a [DNR] inappropriately and without their knowledge" in a hospital where "the practice of completing such a form was linked to decisions about whether the patient should have access to a ventilator".
READ MORE: Flu is surging back in Australia - and that could be very bad news for the NHS
This breaches rules which stress that a DNR relates only cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and should not preclude access to other treatment, including an ICU admission.
The researchers note that several organisations including Scottish Care, Age Scotland, and Inclusion Scotland repeatedly raised concerns that they were being "inundated" with stories of DNRs being applied on a blanket basis - for example to all residents in a care home - contrary to human rights law, or "slipped into" patient medical notes.
While the decision to impose a DNR is a clinical decision and can be imposed despite opposition from a patient or their next of kin, failing to consult them is a violation of human rights law.
In most cases, a DNR order is advised because patients are very frail with significant underlying health problems which mean that CPR would be futile and, even if it succeeded, could cause harm and distress and result in such a poor quality of life that the patient would not value it.
Inclusion Scotland said it had received "harrowing anecdotal evidence" of disabled people receiving letters at the peak of the first Covid wave telling them a DNR would be put in place if they were to be hospitalised.
Heather Fisken, Inclusion Scotland's head of policy and research, said: "Personal evidence shows that notices were placed on disabled people's medical records without their consent, or they were put under pressure to accept a DNR.
"Despite this, there is still no official evidence or analysis, so we still do not know the scale of the problem or how many lives were lost because of potentially discriminatory attitudes and practices.
"This should never have happened, and it can't happen again. Disabled people and their families need full transparency and concrete reassurances that they won’t be denied treatment simply because they are disabled."
READ MORE: Unclear whether Covid cash reach those 'who most needed it', says watchdog
Michelle Supple, director of charity services at Age Scotland said: “In the early weeks of the pandemic, we spoke to family members whose older relatives were either forced to sign a DNR, despite lacking the mental capacity to do so, or found a DNR among their belongings after being discharged from hospital.
“Covid-19 has disproportionately affected older people and from all the direct evidence we’ve heard, it's clear the DNR form seemed to be acting like a tool to almost write some older people off before they were given a fighting chance.
"We’ve repeatedly issued calls to get to the bottom of this. It originated somewhere and the practice is wholly, wholly wrong.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said it had established the independent Scottish Covid Inquiry "to provide scrutiny and answers to the questions people have about the handling of the pandemic", but stressed that there had been "absolutely no change in guidance to the use of Do Not Attempt CPR forms in NHS Scotland, and no change to the advice issued to clinicians about their use".
He added: “We continue to expect healthcare professionals to discuss treatment options openly and honestly with patients, and their families where appropriate, to help ensure that they get the care that is right for them given their specific medical circumstances.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel