Timing of do-not-resuscitate orders for hospitalized older adults who require a surrogate decision-maker

OBJECTIVES

To examine the frequency of surrogate decisions for in-hospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and the timing of DNR order entry for surrogate decisions.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large, urban, public hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized adults aged 65 and older over a 3-year period (1/1/2004-12/31/2006) with a DNR order during their hospital stay.

MEASUREMENTS

Electronic chart review provided data on frequency of surrogate decisions, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, and timing of DNR orders.

RESULTS

Of 668 patients, the ordering physician indicated that the DNR decision was made with the patient in 191 cases (28.9%), the surrogate in 389 (58.2%), and both in 88 (13.2%). Patients who required a surrogate were more likely to be in the intensive care unit (62.2% vs 39.8%, P<.001) but did not differ according to demographic characteristics. By hospital Day 3, 77.6% of patient decisions, 61.9% of surrogate decisions, and 58.0% of shared decisions had been made. In multivariable models, the number of days from admission to DNR order was higher for surrogate (odds ratio (OR)=1.97, P<.001) and shared decisions (OR=1.48, P=.009) than for patient decisions. The adjusted hazard ratio for hospital death was higher for patients with surrogate than patient decisions (2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.56-4.36). Patients whose DNR orders were written on Day 6 or later were twice as likely to die in the hospital (OR=2.20, 95% CI=1.45-3.36) than patients with earlier DNR orders.

CONCLUSION

For patients who have a DNR order entered during their hospital stay, order entry occurs later when a surrogate is involved. Surrogate decision-making may take longer because of the greater ethical, emotional, or communication complexity of making decisions with surrogates than with patients.

Discussing and documenting (do not attempt) resuscitation orders in a Dutch Hospital: a disappointing reality

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the introduction of a patient information sheet about do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) orders and personal motivation of the medical staff results in an improvement in the documentation of the DNAR orders in the medical records.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

METHOD

The medical records for all hospital admissions during February 2005 were checked for age, sex, admission time, admitting specialty, admission type (acute or planned), death, documentation of the DNAR order on the admission form, and if this order was complied with and under whose initiative the order was implemented or not. These data were compared to the medical records from 2 years earlier.

RESULTS

In 2005, 119 (9.3%) medical records a DNAR order was found, compared to 10.7% in 2003. In the 43 patients who died DNAR orders were documented more often (18.6%) than in other patients (9%). The DNAR order was written more frequently for patients who were older (46.5 years versus 67.5 years), had a longer hospital admission period (4.2 versus 12.4 days) and for acute admissions. No difference was found for sex. Of the specialties with more than 10 admissions a month, the most frequently written DNAR orders came from internal medicine (36%) and pulmonology (31%); the least from cardiology (2.2%) and thoracic surgery (0%). In 9 of the 119 (7.6%) the DNAR orders were explained, most were initiated by the doctor (7), 1 by the patient an 1 by the family.

CONCLUSION

Giving patients more information about DNAR orders and motivating medical staff personally does not influence the documentation of DNAR orders. If documented, it occurred more in the elderly and the deceased patients. Only a few DNAR orders were specified and most were initiated by the doctor.

Prevalence of 'do not attempt resuscitation' orders and living wills among patients suffering cardiac arrest in four secondary hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and implementation of 'do not resuscitate' orders, nowadays called 'do not attempt resuscitation' (DNAR) orders and living wills among patients suffering in-hospital cardiac arrest (CA) in whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation was not initiated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective survey of CA patients conducted in four secondary hospitals during 2000-2001. The information collected included the presence of DNAR and a living will and the patients sociodemographic and disease factors and the reasons for not initiating resuscitation when no DNAR order was present. Data on the resuscitated patients were collected according to the Utstein recommendations (analyzed and published separately) and used for comparison.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1486 patients suffered CA without resuscitation being initiated. Data collection was successful in 1143 patients (77%), who were included in the study. Most of the patients (84.5%) had a DNAR order. The prevalence of DNAR orders differed between the participating hospitals (P<0.001), and between the wards of the hospital, with most DNAR orders in the cardiac care unit (100%) and medical wards (87%). The patients designated as DNAR were likely to be older (P<0.01) and of poorer functional status (P<0.001). Reasons for abstaining from resuscitation without a DNAR order were unwitnessed arrest (27%) and terminal disease (66%). Living wills were uncommon (1.5%). Patients with a living will were likely to have a DNAR order (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Most patients who suffered in-hospital CA without resuscitation had a DNAR order, and, for those who did not, terminal disease and medical futility were evident in most cases. Living wills were uncommon, but they appeared to have had some impact on treatment.

Advanced lung disease. Palliation and terminal care

Considering that lung disease is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, remarkably little has been written about palliative care for patients who die of respiratory disease. Because most such deaths are anticipated, palliative care should begin with advance medical planning, ideally in the form of a prescheduled meeting among the physician, the patient, and the patient's proxy for health affairs. Home hospice care should be considered when a patient with progressive lung disease is largely confined to the bedroom because of dyspnea. Medical attention during the terminal phase of a respiratory illness should focus on the experience of the patient. Common symptoms amenable to counseling and pharmacotherapy include dyspnea, pain, anxiety, insomnia, and depression. If initiated to no benefit, mechanical ventilation can be terminally withdrawn with the concurrence of the patient or family. The withdrawal process should be family centered, and followed by continued supportive care until the patient dies.

Changes over time in the use of do not resuscitate orders and the outcomes of patients receiving them

OBJECTIVES

Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders are increasingly common, though there has been little evaluation of their changing use. The authors contrasted the use and outcomes of DNR orders for nationally representative samples of Medicare patients hospitalized with specific diagnoses in 1981 to 1982 and 1985 to 1986.

METHODS

Using ordinary least squares regression to adjust for patient and hospital characteristics, the authors compared use, timing and predictors of DNR orders, and survival to hospital discharge of patients with DNR orders between the two time periods.

RESULTS

After adjustment for sickness at admission and for patient and hospital factors, more patients received DNR orders in 1985 to 1986 than in 1981 to 1982 (13% versus 10%, P < 0.001), with most of the increase among patients with the greatest sickness at admission. Disparity in DNR order use by age, diagnosis, functional status, preadmission residence, and gender found in 1981 to 1982 was still present in 1985 to 1986. DNR orders were written earlier in hospitalization during the latter time period. Patients with DNR orders were more likely to survive to hospital discharge in 1985 to 1986 than in 1981 to 1982 (44% versus 36%, P = 0.001), but their 30-day survival did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Although use increased, disparities in DNR order assignment persisted in these 1980s data. Examination is needed into whether these differences persist and whether they reflect patient preferences. Systems should be developed to preserve and review the preferences of the increasing number of patients discharged after in-hospital DNR orders.

Resuscitation in cancer. Comparison of patient and health staff preferences

One hundred oncology patients from a major teaching hospital and their treating health staff were studied in the second phase of research examining attitudes towards cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A descriptive approach was used incorporating semistructured interviews of patients and established questionnaire measures, examining knowledge of and attitude towards disease and treatment, psychological functioning, and current and projected attitude toward resuscitation. Health staff also participated in a semistructured interview. This phase of the project focused particularly on a direct comparison of patient and staff assessments. In current circumstances, 10% of patients refused resuscitation. This was associated with disease of good prognosis. In a future hypothetical deteriorated scenario presented to patients, 39% declined resuscitation. This was associated with a past history of suicidal behavior. In current circumstances, health staff designated 14% of patients "Do-Not-Resuscitate" (DNR)--this was associated with a number of variables considered to predict poor outcome in resuscitation. In the future scenario, staff designated 54% of patients DNR--this was associated again with poor resuscitation outcome variables, but also independently, with a past psychiatric history. Comparison of patient and health staff preferences for resuscitation showed moderate yet significant concordance in current circumstances but not in the future scenario. The findings indicate firstly the feasibility of discussing resuscitation preferences with seriously ill patients and secondly an urgent need to improve patient and staff discussions regarding resuscitation, as staff and patients' attitudes to resuscitation differ.

Nurses' perceptions of the support of patient autonomy in do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions

This replication of Ott's study [Ott, B. (1986). An Ethical Problem Facing Nurses: The Support of Patient Autonomy in the Do Not Resuscitate Decision. University Microfilms International, Dissertation, Texas Women's University] and McLaughlin et al.'s study [McLaughlin, T., Brown, O. and Herman, J. (1988). Nurses' Perception of the Support of Patient Autonomy in Do Not Resuscitate Situations. Unpublished Research Report] explored hospital staff nurses' perceptions of their role in supporting patient autonomy in the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision. One-hundred and sixty-five registered nurses (RNs) participated: 93 from the Veterans Administration Medical Center and 72 from a private non-profit hospital. Ott's questionnaire had four hypothetical cases in which a DNR decision would probably be made with three questions about whose opinion would most support patient autonomy and whose opinion would actually be regarded as the most appropriate for making the DNR decision. Seventy per cent of perceptions of the person whose decision would be best able to support the patient's autonomy in the DNR decision and 51% of the people perceived to actually be deemed most appropriate to make the DNR decision were consistent with Ott's DNR Decision Model.

Resuscitation. Patient and staff attitudes in the context of cancer

One hundred oncology and hematology cancer patients from a major teaching hospital and their treating doctors were studied regarding their attitudes toward cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A descriptive approach was used, incorporating semistructured interviews of patients and medical staff and established questionnaire measures, examining knowledge of and attitudes toward disease and treatment, and projected attitude toward CPR and current psychological functioning. One-third of the patient sample anticipated a time when they would not consent to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This was significantly associated with good disease prognosis. Patients with a psychiatric past history were also overrespresented. It appears that patient attitude to treatment withdrawal and refusal of CPR is related to disease progression and likely to change over time. This supports a dynamic and evolving model of advance directives rather than any fixed decree. Medical staff reported that they planned to provide half the sample with intensive medical treatment (including Intensive Care support in the event of their cardiac arrest), and 32% were designated for ward-based resuscitation only. Eighteen percent would not be resuscitated. These patients were older, had more treatment side effects, and a poorer quality of life. Those patients with either a psychiatric past history or higher ratings of depressive affect were also overincluded in the doctors' "Do-Not-Resuscitate" (DNR) group. These results suggest that there are other qualitative factors (e.g., current psychological functioning and past psychiatric history) that contribute to DNR decisions beyond the usual disease-based criteria seen in formal DNR protocols.

The negotiation of death: clinical decision making at the end of life

The ability of medical science to prolong biological life through the use of technology raises the question of how far physicians should go in treating the terminally ill patient. In clinical decision making involving the dying patient, physicians, patients and families bring various perceptions and interpretations to the situation. These different realities must be negotiated in order to define the meaning of the situation and the meaning of various medical technologies. The patient's demise becomes a negotiated death, a bargaining over how far medical technology should go in prolonging life or in prolonging death. A case study of the process of ethical decision making in the foregoing of life-supporting therapy in an intensive care setting is presented and analyzed. The decision making process in this case follows a 'cascade' pattern rather than a controlled, reflective model. While ethicists view the withholding and withdrawing of life-supporting treatment as morally equivalent, physicians tend to make a distinction based on the perceived locus of moral responsibility for the patient's death. In the author's interpretation the moral responsibility for the patient's death by withdrawing treatment is shared with family members, while the moral responsibility for the patient's death by withholding treatment is displaced to the patient. The author suggests that an illusion of choice in medical decision making, as offered by the physician, begins a negotiation of meanings that allows a sharing of moral responsibility for medical failure and its eventual acceptance by patient, family and physician alike.