Association Between Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate Orders and Emergency Medicine Residents’ Decision Making

Prevalence, Management, and Outcomes Related to Preoperative Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) in an Adult Surgical Population: Preoperative MOLST and Code Status Discussions

OBJECTIVE

To determine prevalence of documented preoperative code status discussions and postoperative outcomes (specifically mortality, readmission, and discharge disposition) of patients with completed MOLST forms before surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A MOLST form documents patient care preference regarding treatment limitations. When considering surgery in these patients, preoperative discussion is necessary to ensure concordance of care. Little is known about prevalence of these discussions and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted consisting of all patients having surgery during a 1-year period at a tertiary care academic center in Boston, Massachusetts.

RESULTS

Among 21,787 surgical patients meeting inclusion criteria, 402 (1.8%) patients had preoperative MOLST. Within the MOLST, 224 (55.7%) patients had chosen to limit cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 214 (53.2%) had chosen to limit intubation and mechanical ventilation. Code status discussion was documented presurgery in 169 (42.0%) patients with MOLST. Surgery was elective or nonurgent for 362 (90%), and median length of stay (Q1, Q3) was 5.1 days (1.9, 9.9). The minority of patients with preoperative MOLST were discharged home [169 (42%), and 103 (25.6%) patients were readmitted within 30 days. Patients with preoperative MOLST had a 30-day mortality of 9.2% (37 patients) and cumulative 90-day mortality of 14.9% (60 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of surgical patients with preoperative MOLST have documented code status discussions before surgery. Given their high risk of postoperative mortality and the diversity of preferences found in MOLST, thoughtful discussion before surgery is critical to ensure concordant perioperative care.

Variation in the design of Do Not Resuscitate orders and other code status options: a multi-institutional qualitative study

BACKGROUND

US hospitals typically provide a set of code status options that includes Full Code and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) but often includes additional options. Although US hospitals differ in the design of code status options, this variation and its impacts have not been empirically studied.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Multi-institutional qualitative study at 7 US hospitals selected for variability in geographical location, type of institution and design of code status options. We triangulated across three data sources (policy documents, code status ordering menus and in-depth physician interviews) to characterise the code status options available at each hospital. Using inductive qualitative methods, we investigated design differences in hospital code status options and the perceived impacts of these differences.

RESULTS

The code status options at each hospital varied widely with regard to the number of code status options, the names and definitions of code status options, and the formatting and capabilities of code status ordering menus. DNR orders were named and defined differently at each hospital studied. We identified five key design characteristics that impact the function of a code status order. Each hospital's code status options were unique with respect to these characteristics, indicating that code status plays differing roles in each hospital. Physician participants perceived that the design of code status options shapes communication and decision-making practices about resuscitation and life-sustaining treatments, especially at the end of life. We identified four potential mechanisms through which this may occur: framing conversations, prompting decisions, shaping inferences and creating categories.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantive differences in the design of hospital code status options that may contribute to known variability in end-of-life care and treatment intensity among US hospitals. Our framework can be used to design hospital code status options or evaluate their function.

Timing of do-not-resuscitate orders and health care utilization near the end of life in cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The objectives are to explore the prevalence of DNR orders, the factors influencing them, and the association between DNR signing and health care utilization among advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Data from cancer decedents in three hospitals in China from January 2016 to December 2017 during their last hospitalization before death were obtained from the electronic medical records system.

RESULTS

In total, 427 cancer patients were included; 59.0% had a DNR order. Patients who had solid tumors, lived in urban areas, had more than one comorbidity, and had more than five symptoms were more likely to have DNR orders. The cut-off of the timing of obtaining a DNR order was 3 days, as determined by the median number of days from the signing of a DNR order to patient death. Patients with early DNR orders (more than 3 days before death) were less likely to be transferred to the intensive care unit and undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation, tracheal intubation, and ventilation, while they were more likely to be given morphine and psychological support compared with those with late (within 3 days before death) and no orders.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced cancer patients with solid tumors living in urban areas with more symptoms and comorbidities are relatively more likely to have DNR orders. Early DNR orders are associated with less aggressive procedures and more comfort measures. However, these orders are always signed late. Future studies are needed to better understand the timing of DNR orders.