Hospital do-not-resuscitate orders: why they have failed and how to fix them.

Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Weill Medical College, Cornell University, 525 E 68th Street, Box 39, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 02/2011; 26(7):791-7. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1632-x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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 self-determination and avoiding non-beneficial interventions at the end of life.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore the meaning of conflicts in nurses caring DNR (do-not-resuscitate) patients. Methods: The participants were 7 nurses caring DNR patients. Data were gathered using in-depth interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Colaizzi method was used to analyze the data. Results: The significant results can be categorized into 7 concept descriptions and 5 theme clusters by analyzing the interviews. The major theme clusters for the experiences of nurses were 'Pity about exceptional nursing actions', 'Pity about the unilateral decision making', 'Pity about halfhearted family love', 'Pity about unprepared circumstance for deathbed', and 'Pity about the absent guideline for DNR'. Conclusion: The finding of this study will help nurses resolve conflicts in caring DNR patients and provide a scientific basis for developing nursing intervention strategies for DNR patients.
    Journal of East-West Nursing Research. 01/2011; 17(2).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Goals of care discussions, including those focused on code status, are meant to foster autonomous decision making. Unfortunately, these discussions often conflate decisions regarding the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest and mechanical ventilation for prearrest respiratory failure. They also exclude discussions of outcomes, particularly those associated with prearrest respiratory failure. In doing so, they may fail in their intention of extending patient autonomy. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014. © 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine
    Journal of Hospital Medicine 06/2014; · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders prevent medically futile attempts at resuscitation but are not always instituted in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. One explanation for this underuse is the perception that DNR orders are inevitably associated with withdrawal of all medical interventions and inpatient death. Objectives: To audit discharge and survival outcomes and changes in clinical management in hospitalized adult oncology patients with a DNR order, allowing an assessment of whether such orders lead to cessation of acute interventions and high rates of in-hospital death. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 270 oncology inpatients at Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia, between February 1, 2012 and November 30, 2012. Results: Mean and median time to institution of DNR orders after admission were 2.1 and 1.0 days, respectively (interquartile range, 0-2 days). Medical interventions continued in 80% or more of cases after DNR orders were placed included blood draws, intravenous antimicrobials, imaging, blood products, and radiotherapy. Two-thirds of patients survived hospitalization and were discharged alive. Survival at 30 days and 90 days after DNR orders were implemented was 63% and 33%, respectively. Baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 5 or less and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less were associated with a higher probability of being discharged alive and longer overall survival. Conclusions: Most medical interventions were continued with high frequency in adult oncology inpatients after placement of DNR orders. A majority of patients survived hospitalization and remained alive at 30 days after DNR orders were documented. This study offers some reassurance that DNR orders do not inevitably lead to cessation of appropriate medical treatment.
    Journal of Palliative Medicine 05/2014; · 2.06 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 17, 2014