English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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