CPR for the DNR: The Role of the Limited Aggressive Therapy Order (original) (raw)
Related papers
Influences of "do-not-resuscitate order" prohibition on CPR outcomes
Turkish journal of emergency medicine, 2016
The aim of the study is to determine factors affecting the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) ratios, neurological outcomes at discharge, the ratio of living patients discharged from the hospital and due to Do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) prohibition. This is a retrospective observational study conducted on patients of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed in emergency department (ED) and intensive care units between February 2010 and February 2012. A total of 469 patients were evaluated, and 266 eligible patients who did not have DNAR orders were included in the study. Overall, 45.1% of the adult in-hospital cardiac arrest victims returned to spontaneous circulation, and 5.3% survived to hospital discharge. Of the patients who were discharged alive from the hospital, 33.3% were discharged in poor neurologic conditions of Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score 3 or 4. The ROSC ratio was reduced for the patients with malignancies compared to the patients with oth...
Life-sustaining treatment. A prospective study of patients with DNR orders in a teaching hospital
Archives of Internal Medicine, 1988
\s=b\We conducted a prospective survey of attending, resident, and intern physicians who had written a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order for 93 patients in their care. After writing a DNR order, 11% of respondents would still use chest compression if their patient experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest. Many physicians did not plan to withdraw therapy except intensive care, but most physicians planned to withhold a spectrum of life-sustaining therapies, from hemodialysis (86%) to intravenous fluids (21%). Attending and house-staff physicians generally agreed on whether to withdraw a given therapy or not but frequently disagreed on whether to withhold a therapy or not. After patient discharge or death, 88 charts were reviewed. None of the 88 patients was coded. Physicians initiated 68 life sustaining therapies in 43 patients and discontinued 64 therapies in 34 patients; there was no change in management in 31 patients. We conclude that individual physicians interpret the DNR order differently. These orders often are associated with the discontinuation or noninitiation of life-sustaining therapies other than emergency CPR. (Arch Intern Med 1988;148:2193-2198 "Precisions not to resuscitate have become increasingly complex as advanced life-support technology has be¬ come more sophisticated.1·2 Components of advanced life support, especially vasopressors and mechanical ventila¬ tion, are commonly used to treat critically ill patients. These therapies are also central to emergency resuscitation efforts, leading to potential for confusion about the precise meaning of the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order.35 Although reports on DNR orders and policies have been developed by governmental organizations,6·7 and although many hos¬ pitals have formulated DNR policies, clear and consistent definitions of DNR orders and policies have only recently been suggested.8-10
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation--time for a change in the paradigm?
The Medical journal of Australia, 2014
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the default treatment in hospital unless there is a decision to the contrary and this is documented in the patient record. The outcome of CPR in older chronically ill patients is very poor and discharge home is unlikely. Fewer not-for-resuscitation (NFR) orders are written than there are patients who would not benefit from CPR. NFR orders appear to be a marker of death, rather than the result of informed discussion about end-of-life care. There is a legal and ethical framework for the consideration of the suitability of CPR. Discussions about CPR are challenging, and uncertainty is introduced because of the lack of consensus around futility, the emotionally charged nature of the topic, misconceptions about the success of CPR and the failure to recognise that not offering CPR will allow a peaceful and supported death. Discussion around CPR can be misconstrued as a need for consent. A focus on patient and family involvement may result in an expec...
2014
Background: Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) patients tend to receive less medical care after the order is written. To provide a clearer approach, the Ohio Department of Health adopted the Do-Not-Resuscitate law in 1998, indicating two distinct protocols of DNR orders that allow DNR patients to choose the medical care: DNR Comfort Care (DNRCC), implying DNRCC patients receive only comfort care after the order is written; and DNR Comfort Care-Arrest (DNRCC-Arrest), implying that DNRCC-Arrest patients are eligible to receive aggressive interventions until cardiac or respiratory arrest. The aim of this study was to examine the medical care provided to patients with these two distinct protocols of DNR orders. Methods: Data were collected from August 2002 to December 2005 at a medical intensive care unit in a university-affiliated teaching hospital. In total, 188 DNRCC-Arrest patients, 88 DNRCC patients, and 2,051 non-DNR patients were included. Propensity score matching using multivariate logistic regression was used to balance the confounding variables between the 188 DNRCC-Arrest and 2,051 non-DNR patients, and between the 88 DNRCC and 2,051 non-DNR patients. The daily cost of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, the daily cost of hospital stay, the daily discretionary cost of ICU stay, six aggressive interventions, and three comfort care measures were used to indicate the medical care patients received. The association of each continuous variable and categorical variable with having a DNR order written was analyzed using Student's t-test and the χ 2 test, respectively. The six aggressive interventions and three comfort care measures performed before and after the order was initiated were compared using McNemar's test. Results: DNRCC patients received significantly fewer aggressive interventions and more comfort care after the order was initiated. By contrast, for DNRCC-Arrest patients, the six aggressive interventions provided were not significantly decreased, but the three comfort care measures were significantly increased after the order was initiated. In addition, the three medical costs were not significantly different between DNRCC and non-DNR patients, or between DNRCC-Arrest and non-DNR patients. Conclusions: When medical care provided to DNR patients is clearly indicated, healthcare professionals will provide the medical care determined by patient/surrogate decision-makers and healthcare professionals, rather than blindly decreasing medical care.
Medicine, 2015
Lack of clarity about the exact clinical implications of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) has caused confusion that has been addressed repeatedly in the literature. To provide improved understanding about the portability of DNR and the medical care provided to DNR patients, the state of Ohio passed a Do-Not-Resuscitate Law in 1998, which clearly pointed out 2 different protocols of do-not-resuscitate: DNR comfort care (DNRCC) and DNR comfort care arrest (DNRCC-Arrest). The objective of this study was to examine the outcome of patients with the 2 different protocols of DNR orders.This is a retrospective observational study conducted in a medical intensive care unit (MICU) in a hospital located in Northeast Ohio. The medical records of the initial admissions to the MICU during data collection period were concurrently and retrospectively reviewed. The association between 2 variables was examined using Chi-squared test or Student's t-test. The outcome of DNRCC, DNRCC-Arrest, and No-DNR pati...
Gerontology, 2010
of decision-making capacity (8%). Residents who wrote DNAR orders were more experienced. In many of the DNAR or CPR forms (19.8 and 16%, respectively), the order was written using a variety of formulations. For 24% of the residents, the distinction between the resuscitation order and the care objective was not clear. 38% of the residents found the resuscitation form useful. Conclusion: Patients' prognosis and quality of life were the two main independent factors associated with CPR/DNAR orders. However, in the majority of cases, residents evaluated prognosis only intuitively, and quality of life without involving the patients. The distinction between CPR/DNAR orders and the care objectives was not always clear. Specific training regarding CPR/DNAR orders is necessary to improve the CPR/DNAR decision process used by physicians.
Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: Why They Have Failed and How to Fix Them
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2011
Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders have been in use in hospitals nationwide for over 20 years. Nonetheless, as currently implemented, they fail to adequately fulfill their two intended purposes-to support patient autonomy and to prevent non-beneficial interventions. These failures lead to serious consequences. Patients are deprived of the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding resuscitation, and CPR is performed on patients who would have wanted it withheld or are harmed by the procedure. This article highlights the persistent problems with today's use of inpatient DNR orders, i.e., DNR discussions do not occur frequently enough and occur too late in the course of patients' illnesses to allow their participation in resuscitation decisions. Furthermore, many physicians fail to provide adequate information to allow patients or surrogates to make informed decisions and inappropriately extrapolate DNR orders to limit other treatments. Because these failings are primarily due to systemic factors that result in deficient physician behaviors, we propose strategies to target these factors including changing the hospital culture, reforming hospital policies on DNR discussions, mandating provider communication skills training, and using financial incentives. These strategies could help overcome existing barriers to proper DNR discussions and align the use of DNR orders closer to their intended purposes of supporting patient selfdetermination and avoiding non-beneficial interventions at the end of life.
Would physicians override a do-not-resuscitate order when a cardiac arrest is iatrogenic?
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1999
To assess whether physicians would be more likely to override a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order when a hypothetical cardiac arrest is iatrogenic. DESIGN: Mailed survey of 358 practicing physicians. SETTING: A university-affiliated community teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Of 358 physicians surveyed, 285 (80%) responded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Each survey included three case descriptions in which a patient negotiates a DNR order, and then suffers a cardiac arrest. The arrests were caused by the patient's underlying disease, by an unexpected complication of treatment, and by the physician's error. Physicians were asked to rate the likelihood that they would attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation for each case description. Physicians indicated that they would be unlikely to override a DNR order when the arrest was caused by the patient's underlying disease (mean score 2.55 on a scale from 1 "certainly would not" to 7 "certainly would"). Physicians reported they would be much more likely to resuscitate when the arrest was due to a complication of treatment (5.24 vs 2.55; difference 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.44, 2.91; p Ͻ .001), and that they would be even more likely to resuscitate when the arrest was due to physician error (6.32 vs 5.24; difference 95% CI 0.88, 1.20; p Ͻ .001). Eight percent, 29%, and 69% of physicians, respectively, said that they "certainly would" resuscitate in these three vignettes (p Ͻ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians may believe that DNR orders do not apply to iatrogenic cardiac arrests and that patients do not consider the possibility of an iatrogenic arrest when they negotiate a DNR order. Physicians may also believe that there is a greater obligation to treat when an illness is iatrogenic, and particularly when an illness results from the physician's error. This response to iatrogenic cardiac arrests, and its possible generalization to other iatrogenic complications, deserves further consideration and discussion.