Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Absence of monitoring in withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) and other treatments: a cause for concern?

Alice Gray, Mark Pickering and Stephen Sturman
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2020-0673
Clin Med May 2021
Alice Gray
AChristian Medical Fellowship, London, UK and specialist registrar in palliative medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
Roles: research associate
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Pickering
BChristian Medical Fellowship, London, UK and prison general practitioner, London, UK
Roles: chief executive officer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Sturman
CChristian Medical Fellowship, London, UK and consultant neurologist (neurorehabilitation), University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
Roles: associate head of the doctors ministries
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: steve.sturman@cmf.org.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

ABSTRACT

Since 2018, there has been no requirement to bring decisions about the withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with persistent disorders of consciousness before the courts, providing that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) are fulfilled. Subsequent British Medical Association and Royal College of Physicians guidance on CANH withdrawal recommended standards of record keeping and internal and external audit to ensure local decision making was compliant with the MCA to safeguard patients. The scope of the guidance also included patients with stroke and neurodegenerative disorders.

Freedom of Information requests made 2 years after the introduction of this guidance have shown that none of the NHS trusts or clinical commissioning groups who responded were undertaking any systematic monitoring of these decisions. Neither is the Care Quality Commission reviewing these decisions, as there is ‘no statutory requirement’ to do so. It appears there is a lack of organised scrutiny of these highly complex life-ending treatment decisions. This omission must surely be a cause for concern.

KEYWORDS:
  • treatment withdrawal
  • CANH
  • persistent disorders of consciousness

Introduction

Decisions about limitation or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in patients who lack capacity in England and Wales are the responsibility of the treating doctor. The withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients in a vegetative state, however, was treated differently until recently.

In 1993 it was established in case law that CANH is ‘treatment’ and not just ‘routine care’, and that it could be withdrawn on the basis that a treatment with no therapeutic benefit was ‘futile’.1 It was recommended, however, that until a body of expertise and practice had been built up, decisions about withdrawal of CANH (specifically from patients in a vegetative state (VS)) should be brought before the court to obtain declaratory relief that the proposed action was legal on the grounds of futility. VS is just one of three recognised persisting disorders of consciousness (PDOC) which include coma and minimally conscious state (MCS).

The case of W v M (2011) established that it was reasonable to extend the grounds for declaratory relief regarding withdrawal of CANH to cases of patients in MCS.2 This meant all PDOC states were subject to the same decision-making process even though determining outcomes in MCS is more challenging.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal requirement for cases where CANH withdrawal was under consideration to be brought to the court provided there was agreement upon what was in the patient's best interests and that the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed and the relevant guidance observed.3

The British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of Physicians (RCP) later in 2018 drew up guidance for best interests decision making, proportionate external review and documentation regarding the process for withholding or withdrawing CANH in patients with PDOC.4 Importantly, this guidance covers not only patients with newly acquired brain injury but also patients with neurodegenerative disorders and stroke in whom CANH was not thought to be in their best interests.

In March 2020, the RCP issued the national clinical guidelines Prolonged disorders of consciousness following sudden onset brain injury.5 This expands on the levels of external scrutiny required to oversee decisions regarding withdrawal of not only CANH but also other treatments that it may be appropriate to limit.

The 2018 BMA/RCP guidance stipulates that, where decisions are made to withdraw CANH, then the following standards of audit and record keeping should apply:

A detailed record should be kept of the decision-making process and the decision reached, in a format that can be easily extracted from the rest of the medical record.

For patients in VS or MCS following a sudden-onset brain injury, use of the model proforma developed as part of this guidance is recommended. This can be accessed at www.bma.org.uk/CANH.

Decisions about CANH should be subject to internal review and audit, including through established procedures for reviewing deaths. They should also form part of the external review undertaken by the Care Quality Commission and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales.

Where relevant national data collection and audit exist, health professionals should contribute to them.4

These recommendations are endorsed in the RCP 2020 PDOC national clinical guidelines including the requirement that review of CANH withdrawal decisions should form part of any Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection.

Since 2018 CANH withdrawal decisions in patients with acquired brain injury, neurodegenerative disease and stroke have therefore been the responsibility of clinicians at local level but internal review and audit has been required with external scrutiny from the CQC. We were concerned to know if this system is effective and therefore made Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to healthcare providers to clarify what systems are in place.

Methods

Between January and March 2020, FOI requests were made to acute hospital trusts, specialist hospital trusts and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England asking for information on the following.

  • In your trust/CCG, is there any formal register kept of deaths occurring as a result of withdrawal of CANH that occur under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and BMA/RCP guidelines 2018?

  • If such a register is kept, can you advise if there is any independent internal or external audit made of such deaths and the degree to which there is compliance with the BMA/RCP guidelines, 2018, when such deaths occur?

  • Where deaths due to withdrawal of CANH are recorded and an audit is made of these, can you give an indication of the number such deaths in 2018 and in 2019, and the percentage of cases where the BMA/RCP guideline checklist has been used and fully completed?

A total of 342 hospital trusts and CCGs in England were approached which represents 95% of providers.

With respect to external scrutiny, an FOI request to the CQC was made asking the following questions.

  • Does the CQC check whether trusts, practices or other organisations inspected keep any formal register of deaths occurring as a result of withdrawal of CANH that occur under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and BMA/RCP / General Medical Council (GMC) guidelines, 2018?

  • If such a register is kept, can you advise if the CQC performs any audit of such deaths and the degree to which there is compliance with the BMA/RCP/GMC guidelines, 2018, when such deaths occur?

  • Where a CQC inspection finds that deaths due to withdrawal of CANH are recorded and an audit is made of these, are there any data on the number of cases and the percentage of cases where the CQC inspectorate finds that the BMA/RCP/GMC guideline checklist has been used and fully completed?

Results

The overall response rate to the FOI enquiry to providers was 88.8% (Table 1). All respondents advised that they had no register of CANH withdrawal cases and, therefore, in not one organisation was there internal or external audit recorded. None of the respondents had any data on numbers of cases where CANH withdrawal had occurred.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Details of Freedom of Information requests to NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups January–March 2020

The response from the CQC stated that they did not have any requirement to hold a register of deaths associated with withdrawal of CANH and did not specifically seek data about such deaths:

In accordance with section 1(1) of FOIA we are able to confirm that CQC does not hold recorded information in relation to this matter.

No register of deaths occurring as a result of withdrawal of Clinically Artificial [sic] Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) is required to be kept by organizations registered with CQC.

CQC sets statutory requirements on the notification of deaths in any setting. However, we do not currently have a specific statutory requirement that a formal register of deaths be kept where it is known that these occur as a result of the withdrawal of Clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH).

Despite their general powers to look into deaths as part of an inspection, they acknowledged that data about such events are not routinely collected.

It appears, therefore, that at the present time there is no systematic collection of data regarding deaths following withdrawal of CANH and the CQC is not actively monitoring such events.

Discussion

The publication of detailed guidance about CANH and other treatment withdrawal decisions is welcome. The removal of the requirement to involve the court in these decisions is also potentially positive for families and clinicians. There are, however, significant risks with this process that can only be mitigated by appropriate external scrutiny. These might include the following.

  • Unrecognised lack of expertise or unconscious ignorance in clinicians in determining prognosis may result in the improper withdrawal of CANH (or other treatments). The act of treatment withdrawal becomes a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’.

  • Clinical decision-making can be influenced by individual philosophy and institutional culture. Treatment withdrawal decisions can vary widely between institutions independently of clinical factors and between regions.6–8 A culture of nihilism also becomes a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’.

  • Conflicts of interest can influence the contribution of parties involved in the best interests discussion. The available guidance cannot prevent or detect this. External review is needed to ensure best interests have been determined appropriately.

  • The reliability of third-party information to determine a patient's wishes is controversial.9,10 There are currently no safeguards to review this information nor to ensure people with important views are not overlooked or deliberately excluded.

The extent to which these risks exist and truly affect patient outcomes is not known. There is a need for further prospective studies to generate better data about the withdrawal of CANH and other life sustaining treatments. Such studies would need to look not only at compliance with existing guidance but also at the prevalence of conscious or unconscious bias, the risk of conflict of interest, the validity of third-party information and, importantly, the effect of these decisions on patients' families and the clinicians who are involved.

Monitoring of these decisions could be improved by requiring all deaths associated with withdrawal of life sustaining treatment to be formally notified and subject to review. The medical examiner system, recently started in the UK, could fulfil this role to some extent but might still be flawed by personal and institutional bias and the lack of data without further studies. A further level of external scrutiny is likely to be needed to reassure society that these decisions are safe and humane.

Our findings indicate that that there is presently a lack of organised scrutiny of decisions to withdraw CANH, despite national guidance requiring this from 2018 onwards. This, combined with the lack of any requirement to record or monitor decisions to withdraw other life sustaining treatments and our lack of knowledge about factors that may adversely affect these decisions, must surely be a cause for concern.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) HL 4 Feb 1993.
  2. ↵
    W v M (2011) EWHC 2443.
  3. ↵
    An NHS Trust and others v Y and another (2018) UKSC 46.
  4. ↵
    1. British Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians
    . Clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration(CANH) and adults who lack the capacity to consent: Guidance for decision-making in England and Wales. London: BMA, 2018.
  5. ↵
    1. Royal College of Physicians
    . Prolonged disorders of consciousness following sudden onset brain injury: National clinical guidelines. London: RCP, 2020.
  6. ↵
    1. Turgeon AF
    , Lauzier F, Simard J-F, et al. Mortality associated with withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a Canadian multicentre cohort study. CMAJ 2011;183:1581–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Demertzi A
    , Ledoux D, Bruno M-A, et al. Attitudes towards end-of-life issues in disorders of consciousness: a European survey. J Neurol 2011; 258:1058–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kuehlmeyer K
    , Palmour N, Riopelle RJ, et al. Physicians attitudes towards medical and ethical challenges for patients in the vegetative state: comparing Canadian and German perspectives in a vignette survey. BMC Neurology 2014;14:119.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Shalowitz D
    , Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:493–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Sattoe J
    , van Staa AL, Moll HA. The proxy problem anatomized: child-parent disagreement in health-related quality of life reports of chronically ill adolescents. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2012;10:1–13.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Absence of monitoring in withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) and other treatments: a cause for concern?
Alice Gray, Mark Pickering, Stephen Sturman
Clinical Medicine May 2021, 21 (3) 235-237; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0673

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Absence of monitoring in withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) and other treatments: a cause for concern?
Alice Gray, Mark Pickering, Stephen Sturman
Clinical Medicine May 2021, 21 (3) 235-237; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0673
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The effect of the electronic health record on consultants' responsibility for patients and their care in general medicine
  • The role of wirelessly observed therapy in improving treatment adherence
  • Back to the future? Lessons from the history of integrated child health services in England
Show more Opinion

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians