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: 3.28). 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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a paucity of data examining the epidemiology of recipients of multiple in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) attempts, and their outcomes. Data source: Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2000 to 2009. Patient characteristics, survival to discharge, discharge disposition, and cost of hospitalization of patients who had 1 versus multiple (>1) CPR attempts were compared using bivariate and multivariate methods. Of 166,519 hospitalized CPR recipients, 3.4% had multiple CPR attempts. Compared with 1-time CPR recipients, those undergoing multiple CPR were younger (age <65 years; 37.3% vs 42.5%, respectively), more often nonwhite (34.2% vs 41.4%), and commonly treated in nonteaching hospitals (58.0% vs 64.5%; all P < 0.001). Survival to discharge decreased by >40% for each additional CPR attempt (23.4% vs 11.9%, and 6.7% for 1, 2, and ≥3 CPR attempts, respectively; P < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, multiple CPR was independently associated with a lower survival to discharge (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.44, P < 0.001). Recipients of multiple CPR were more likely to be discharged to destinations other than home (80.7% vs 70.1%, P < 0.001); 1 in 15 survivors of multiple CPR were discharged to hospice (6.8%), compared with 1 in 23 patients (4.3%) who had 1 CPR (P = 0.002). The average cost per day of hospitalization was higher for patients who had multiple CPR versus 1 CPR ($4484.60 vs $3581.40, P < 0.001). Recipients of multiple in-hospital CPR attempts are more likely to be younger, nonwhite, and treated in nonteaching hospitals. Survival to discharge is significantly worse, and the cost of hospitalization is considerably higher for these patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013;. © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.
    Journal of Hospital Medicine 12/2013; · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Discussing end-of-life care with patients is often considered taboo, and signing a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is difficult for most patients, especially in Chinese culture. This study investigated distributions and details related to the signing of DNR orders, as well as the completeness of various DNR order forms. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were performed. We screened all charts from a teaching hospital in Taiwan for patients who died of cancer during the period from January 2010 to December 2011. A total of 829 patient records were included in the analysis. The details of the DNR order forms were recorded. RESULTS: The DNR order signing rate was 99.8 %. The percentage of DNR orders signed by patients themselves (DNR-P) was 22.6 %, while the percentage of orders signed by surrogates (DNR-S) was 77.2 %. The percentage of signed DNR forms that were completely filled out was 78.4 %. The percentage of DNR-S forms that were completed was 81.7 %, while the percentage of DNR-P forms that were completely filled out was only 67.6 %. CONCLUSION: Almost all the cancer patients had a signed DNR order, but for the majority of them, the order was signed by a surrogate. Negative attitudes of discussing death from medical professionals and/or the family members of patients may account for the higher number of signed DNR-S orders than DNR-P orders. Moreover, early obtainment of signed DNR orders should be sought, as getting the orders earlier could promote the quality of end-of-life care, especially in non-oncology wards.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 05/2013; · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess existing advance care planning (ACP) practices in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) in Victoria, Australia before a systematic intervention; to assess RACF staff experience, understanding of and attitudes towards ACP. Surveys of participating organisations concerning ACP-related policies and procedures, review of existing ACP-related documentation, and pre-intervention survey of RACF staff covering their role, experiences and attitudes towards ACP-related procedures. 19 selected RACFs in Victoria. 12 aged care organisations (representing 19 RACFs) who provided existing ACP-related documentation for review, 12 RACFs who completed an organisational survey and 45 staff (from 19 RACFs) who completed a pre-intervention survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. Findings suggested that some ACP-related practices were already occurring in RACFs; however, these activities were inconsistent and variable in quality. Six of the 12 responding RACFs had written policies and procedures for ACP; however, none of the ACP-related documents submitted covered all information required to meet ACP best practice. Surveyed staff had limited experience of ACP, and discrepancies between self reported comfort, and levels of knowledge and confidence to undertake ACP-related activities, indicated a need for training and ongoing organisational support. Surveyed organisations â policies and procedures related to ACP were limited and the quality of existing documentation was poor. RACF staff had relatively limited experience in developing advance care plans with facility residents, although attitudes were positive. A systematic approach to the implementation of ACP in residential aged care settings is required to ensure best practice is implemented and sustained.
    Supportive and Palliative Care 09/2013; 3(3):349-357.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 17, 2014