Do-not-resuscitate Orders In Patients Research Articles

Code Status Blues: Do Legal Nudges Discourage Doctors From Ordering Do-Not-Resuscitate?

BackgroundLaws influence human behavior, including practitioners' behavior, and legal nudges may affect bedside patient care practices. Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) practices are one such example. Ensuring that practitioners order DNR for patients who request it is a crucial part of providing quality end-of-life care. On April 1, 2018, in the state of Texas, Senate Bill 11 (SB 11) took effect. This law did not make DNR orders illegal, but it constrained and complicated the process for issuing them. This study aimed to determine if DNR order utilization decreased after the law's implementation. MethodsThe authors conducted a retrospective cohort chart review of all adult patients admitted to a single academic urban tertiary care hospital in Texas before and after the state's DNR law went into effect. The authors reviewed code status orders for the 5426 sickest patients. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who had DNR orders in effect at the end of their hospitalizations. ResultsImplementation of the DNR law's cumbersome documentation and witnessing requirements correlated with a substantial decline in DNR orders for patients at the highest risk of dying from chronic or severe illness. ConclusionThis is the first study the authors know of that examines whether DNR usage declined after implementation of a DNR law. A troubling implication of this study is that the Texas law has had a chilling effect on doctors' willingness and ability to place medically and ethically appropriate DNR orders and has threatened the right of patients with serious illness to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Experience with a Revised Hospital Policy on Not Offering Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Critical care society guidelines recommend that ethics committees mediate intractable conflict over potentially inappropriate treatment, including Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status. There are, however, limited data on cases and circumstances in which ethics consultants recommend not offering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) despite patient or surrogate requests and whether physicians follow these recommendations. This was a retrospective cohort of all adult patients at a large academic medical center for whom an ethics consult was requested for disagreement over DNR status. Patient demographic predictors of ethics consult outcomes were analyzed. In 42 of the 116 cases (36.2%), the patient or surrogate agreed to the clinician recommended DNR order following ethics consultation. In 72 of 74 (97.3%) of the remaining cases, ethics consultants recommended not offering CPR. Physicians went on to write a DNR order without patient/surrogate consent in 57 (79.2%) of those cases. There were no significant differences in age, race/ethnicity, country of origin, or functional status between patients where a DNR order was and was not placed without consent. Physicians were more likely to place a DNR order for patients believed to be imminently dying (p = 0.007). The median time from DNR order to death was 4days with a 90-day mortality of 88.2%. In this single-center cohort study, there was no evidence that patient demographic factors affected ethics consultants' recommendation to withhold CPR despite patient/surrogate requests. Physicians were most likely to place a DNR order without consent for imminently dying patients.

Associations between Patient Characteristics and a New, Early Do-Not-Attempt Resuscitation Order after Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Decisions to limit care, including use of a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order, are associated with increased risk of death after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Given the value that patient surrogates place on the physician's perception of prognosis, understanding prognostic indicators that influence clinical judgment of outcomes is critical. The purpose of this study was to understand the patient variables and comorbid illnesses associated with DNR orders placed on patients within 72 hours after ICH. Single-center, retrospective review of medical records of 198 consecutive patients with an admission diagnosis of primary supratentorial ICH between July 2007 and December 2010. Patients who did not experience a DNR order placement during their primary admission for ICH (non-DNR group) were compared to patients who received a new DNR order in the first 72 hours of admission (DNR group). Patient characteristics obtained include demographic data, past medical history, clinical data pertaining to the admission for the ICH, and radiographic images. Demographic, medical, and ICH injury data during the first three days of admission were collected. Multiple differences in patient and hospital factors were found between patients receiving a new, early DNR order and those who did not receive a DNR order after ICH. In regression modeling, Caucasian race, direct admission, and higher ICH score were associated with placement of a new DNR order early in the course of injury. Race, transfer procedures, and injury severity may be important factors associated with placement of new, early DNR orders in patients after ICH.

The Iranian physicians attitude toward the do not resuscitate order.

BackgroundPhysicians are responsible for making decisions about the do not resuscitate (DNR) order of patients; however, most of them are faced with some uncertainty in decision making and ethical aspects. Moreover, there are differences on decision making related to the DNR order among physicians, which may be related to the different attitudes toward this issue. Considering the lack of information, this study was performed to investigate doctors’ attitude about DNR order for patients in their final phases of life.MethodsIn a descriptive–analytical study, 152 physicians were enrolled as quota sampling subjects from educational hospitals affiliated to the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. The tool used was a researcher-developed questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16 software by descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsThe mean of attitude toward DNR was 3.22, for which the univariate t-test showed a significant positive attitude toward DNR (P=0.002); the mean of attitude number toward DNR was higher in physicians with higher education level (P=0.002). But this difference was not found in terms of age group, sex, and experiences in participating in DNR decisions.ConclusionDue to the positive attitude of doctors toward DNR orders and lack of identified guidance, clear guidelines that comply with the Iranian Islamic culture are necessary to be established. Implementing this directive requires comprehensive training to various groups, including patients, doctors, nurses, administrators, and policy makers of the health system.

Frequent Prescription of Antibiotics and High Burden of Antibiotic Resistance among Deceased Patients in General Medical Wards of Acute Care Hospitals in Korea.

BackgroundAntibiotics are often administered to terminally ill patients until death, and antibiotic use contributes to the emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). We investigated antibiotic use and the isolation of MDROs among patients who died in general medical wards.MethodsAll adult patients who died in the general internal medicine wards at four acute care hospitals between January and June 2013 were enrolled. For comparison with these deceased patients, the same number of surviving, discharged patients was selected from the same divisions of internal medicine subspecialties during the same period.ResultsDuring the study period, 303 deceased patients were enrolled; among them, 265 (87.5%) had do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in their medical records. Antibiotic use was more common in patients who died than in those who survived (87.5% vs. 65.7%, P<0.001). Among deceased patients with DNR orders, antibiotic use was continued in 59.6% of patients after obtaining their DNR orders. Deceased patients received more antibiotic therapy courses (two [interquartile range (IQR) 1–3] vs. one [IQR 0–2], P<0.001). Antibiotics were used for longer durations in deceased patients than in surviving patients (13 [IQR 5–23] vs. seven days [IQR 0–18], P<0.001). MDROs were also more common in deceased patients than in surviving patients (25.7% vs. 10.6%, P<0.001).ConclusionsPatients who died in the general medical wards of acute care hospitals were exposed to more antibiotics than patients who survived. In particular, antibiotic prescription was common even after obtaining DNR orders in patients who died. The isolation of MDROs during the hospital stay was more common in these patients who died. Strategies for judicious antibiotic use and appropriate infection control should be applied to these patient populations.

Increase in the proportion of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction with do-not-resuscitate orders already in place between 2001 and 2007: a nonconcurrent prospective study.

Background and objectiveShared decision making and advance planning in end-of-life decisions have become increasingly important aspects of the management of seriously ill patients. Here, we describe the use and timing of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Study design and settingThe nonconcurrent prospective study population consisted of 4182 patients hospitalized with AMI in central Massachusetts in four annual periods between 2001 and 2007.ResultsOne-quarter (25%) of patients had a DNR order written either prior to or during hospitalization. The frequency of DNR orders remained constant (24% in 2001; 26% in 2007). Among patients with DNR orders, there was a significant increase in orders written prior to hospitalization (2001: 9%; 2007: 55%). Older patients and those with a medical history of heart failure or myocardial infarction were more likely to have prior DNR orders than respective comparison groups. Patients with prior DNR orders were less likely to die 1 month after hospitalization than patients whose DNRs were written during hospitalization.ConclusionAlthough the use of DNR orders in patients hospitalized with AMI was stable during the period under study, in more recent years, patients are increasingly being hospitalized with DNR orders already in place.

Use of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Patients With Kidney Disease Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Patients with kidney disease are at increased risk for adverse health outcomes in comparison to patients without kidney disease. Therefore, patients with kidney disease may have greater use of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders than patients without kidney disease in the setting of an acute illness. We examined the association between advanced kidney disease and use of DNR orders in patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to all greater Worcester, MA, hospitals as part of an epidemiological study. Use of DNR orders in 4,033 Worcester residents hospitalized with AMI at 11 greater Worcester medical centers during 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 was examined. Advanced kidney disease was defined on the basis of serum creatinine level at the time of hospital admission. Forty-nine percent of patients with kidney disease and AMI had a DNR order in their medical records compared with 21% of patients without kidney disease. After controlling for a variety of potentially confounding factors, patients with kidney disease were more likely to have a DNR order than patients without kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.98). Patients with advanced kidney disease who received DNR orders were older, had more comorbid conditions, and were at greater risk for dying than patients with kidney disease without a DNR order. Advanced kidney disease is associated with greater rates of DNR orders in patients hospitalized with AMI. Awareness of kidney disease may be an important consideration for patients and health care providers in discussing the use of DNR measures.

Managing do-not-resuscitate orders in the perianesthesia period

Perianesthesia care often involves the use of pharmacologically potent drugs, increasing the risk of cardiopulmonary depression and arrest. For patients with terminal diseases, it may be difficult to decide whether cardiopulmonary arrest in the perianesthesia period is a result of anesthetic medications, surgical intervention, or the disease process. It is imperative that the patient maintains autonomy and is treated according to his or her wishes regarding do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Some hospitals automatically suspend DNR orders for patients undergoing surgery, whereas others provide patients the option of no, limited, or full resuscitation. This article promotes the premise that all DNR orders should be reviewed and reconsidered with patients before consent for surgery.

Do-not-resuscitate orders in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: the Worcester Heart Attack Study.

Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death in Americans. Despite increased interest in end-of-life care, data regarding the use of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in acutely ill cardiac patients remain extremely limited. The objectives of this study were to describe use of DNR orders, treatment approaches, and hospital outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The study sample consisted of 4621 residents hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction at all metropolitan Worcester, Mass, area hospitals in five 1-year periods from 1991 to 1999. Significant increases in the use of DNR orders were observed during the study decade (from 16% in 1991 to 25% in 1999). The elderly, women, and patients with previous diabetes mellitus or stroke were more likely to have DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders were significantly less likely to be treated with effective cardiac medications, even if the DNR order occurred late in the hospital stay. Less than 1% of patients were noted to have DNR orders before hospital admission. Patients with DNR orders were significantly more likely to die during hospitalization than patients without DNR orders (44% vs 5%). The results of this community-wide study suggest increased use of DNR orders in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction during the past decade. Use of certain cardiac therapies and hospital outcomes are different between patients with and without DNR orders. Further efforts are needed to characterize the use of DNR orders in patients with acute coronary disease.

Do-not-resuscitate orders in acute stroke

Although the general guidelines for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders apply to acute stroke patients, few data are available to aid decision-making. With a view to developing specific guidelines for use in patients with acute stroke, we decided to evaluate the clinical factors associated with DNR orders at our university teaching hospital. We prospectively studied 450 consecutive patients with acute hemispheric strokes (237 men and 213 women, mean age 75 +/- 12 years). Thirty-six patients (8%) had intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and 414 (92%) had ischemic strokes. Overall inhospital mortality was 26%. DNR status was given to 31% of all patients at some time during their admission (83% of those died). DNR decision-making was closely associated with the severity of the neurologic deficit (Canadian Neurological Scale score < or = 5); the patient's incapacity for informed DNR decision-making; age (> 60 years); and devastating ICH unsuitable for surgery (p < 0.001). Fifty-three percent of DNR orders were given on admission (first 24 hours of the hospital stay), 35% during the first week of the hospital stay, due to brain damage, and 12% at any time between days 8 and 44 due to systemic complications. Once DNR status was given, 53% of patients continued to receive normal nutrition and 60% still received medical or surgical treatment. Although the current practice of DNR orders in patients with acute stroke is generally satisfactory, some criteria (eg, age and operable ICH) need revision.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Long-term effects of ethics education on the quality of care for patients who have do-not-resuscitate orders

To assess the long-term clinical impact of a broad-based ethics education program for medical houseofficers with specific emphasis on appropriate care for patients who have do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Prospective, with an initial randomized phase. The medical service of a university teaching hospital. Medical houseofficers and their inpatients. A pilot program in 1988, and a full program with a two-year curricular cycle from 1989 to 1991. The authors measured compliance with specific standards of care by reviewing charts of patients who had DNR orders at baseline (n = 39, 1988), after the pilot phase (n = 57, 1989), and at the end of the first curricular cycle (n = 56, 1991), noticing who wrote the DNR order, whether the reasons for the order and appropriate consent were documented, and whether there was documented attention to any of 11 concurrent care concerns (CCCs), such as spiritual needs, the appropriateness of tube feedings or pressors, and adjustment of analgesic dose. The percentage of DNR orders written by houseofficers increased from 26% in 1988 to 67% in 1991 (p < 0.01). The percentage of charts documenting the rationale and consent for the DNR order was consistently high. The percentage of charts documenting attention to any CCC increased from 68% in 1988 to 86% in 1991 (p < 0.01). The mean number of CCCs addressed per DNA order increased from 1.34 in 1988 to 2.14 in 1991. The mean number of CCCs addressed per DNR order for patients who had AIDS increased from 0.89 in 1988 to 2.25 in 1991 (p = 0.03). The quality of care for patients who had DNR orders, both overall and for those who had AIDS, improved over long-term observation in the setting of an ethics education program for medical houseofficers. The results suggest that ethics education may alter physician practices and improve patient care.