Search

Objective: To describe physician understanding of patient preferences concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to assess the relationship of physician understanding of patient preferences with do not resuscitate (DNR) orders and in-hospital CPR., Design: We evaluated physician understanding of patient CPR preference and the association of patient characteristics and physician-patient communication with physician understanding of patient CPR preferences. Among patients preferring to forego CPR, we compared attempted resuscitations and time to receive a DNR order between patients whose preference was understood or misunderstood by their physician., Patients/setting: Seriously ill hospitalized adult patients were enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for the Outcomes of Treatments. GENERAL RESULTS: Physicians understood 86% of patient preferences for CPR, but only 46% of patient preferences to forego CPR. Younger patient age, higher physician-estimated quality of life, and higher physician prediction of 6-month survival were independently associated with both physician understanding when a patient preferred to receive CPR and physician misunderstanding when a patient preferred to forego CPR. Physicians who spoke with patients about resuscitation and had longer physician-patient relationships understood patients' preferences to forego CPR more often. Patients whose physicians understood their preference to forego CPR more often received DNR orders, received them earlier, and were significantly less likely to undergo resuscitation., Conclusions: Physicians often misunderstand seriously ill, hospitalized patients' resuscitation preferences, especially preferences to forego CPR. Factors associated with misunderstanding suggest that physicians infer patients' preferences without asking the patient. Patients who prefer to forego CPR but whose wishes are not understood by their physician may receive unwanted treatment.

Objective: To evaluate prospectively seriously ill patients' characteristics, perceptions, and preferences associated with discussing resuscitation (CPR) with their physicians., Design: Prospective cohort., Setting: Five academic medical centers., Participants: Patients enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments who had not communicated with their physicians about CPR at admission to a hospital for life-threatening illness (n = 1288)., Measurements: Baseline surveys of patients' characteristics, health status, desires for participation in medical decision making, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Two month follow-up surveys of patients' communication of resuscitation preference. Chart reviews for clinical indicators., Results: Thirty percent of patients communicated their resuscitation preference to their physician during a 2 month-period following hospital admission. Patients whose preference was to forego CPR (odds ratio (OR) 2.9;(95% CI, 1.9-4.2)) and whose preference had changed from desiring to foregoing CPR (OR 1.6; (95% CI, 1.1-2.4)) were more likely to communicate their preference than patients who continued to prefer to receive CPR. However, only 50% of patients who maintained a preference to forego CPR communicated this over a 2-month period. Having an advance directive and remaining in the hospital at 2-month follow-up were also independently associated with communication, whereas patients' preference for participation in decision-making, health status, and prognostic estimate were not., Conclusions: Communication about resuscitation preferences occurred infrequently after hospital admission for a serious illness, even among patients wishing to forego resuscitation. Factors such as declining quality of life, which were expected to be associated with communication, were not. An invitation to communicate about CPR preference is important after hospital admission for a serious illness. Novel approaches are needed to promote physician-patient discussions about resuscitation.

Context: The epidemiology of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders for hospitalized patients has been reported, but little is known about factors associated with the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)., Objective: To identify factors associated with an attempt at CPR for patients who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest., Design: Secondary analysis of data collected in 2 prospective cohort studies: the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT, 1989-1994) and the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP, 1994). Setting Five teaching hospitals across the United States., Participants: A total of 2505 seriously ill hospitalized patients and nonelectively admitted persons aged 80 years or older who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest., Main Outcome Measures: Medical records data on CPR efforts, DNR orders, disease severity, age, race, sex, length of stay, and survival; functional status and preferences concerning CPR obtained by interviews with patients or surrogates; and 2-month survival estimates provided by physicians., Results: Five hundred fourteen study subjects (21 %) received CPR during their index hospitalization. Among them, 327 (63.6%) had CPR within 2 days of death and 93 (18.1 %) had resuscitation and survived their index hospitalization. Use of CPR was more likely in men (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.73), younger patients (OR per 10-year increase, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96), African Americans (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.33-2.34), patients whose reported preferences were for CPR (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.91-3.55), who reported better quality of life (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.03), or who had higher physician estimates for 2-month survival (OR per 10% increase, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.19). Rates varied significantly with geographic location and diagnosis; the adjusted OR for patients with congestive heart failure was 3.31 (95% CI, 2.12-5.15) compared with patients with acute respiratory failure or multiple organ system failure., Conclusions: Our data suggest that a resuscitation attempt is more likely when preferred by patients and when death is least expected. Further study is required to understand variation in use of CPR among sites and for patients with different diagnoses, race, sex, or age.

Objectives: To describe functional outcomes of seriously III patients who survived 2 months after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with worse functional status after CPR., Methods: Multicenter prospective observational analysis of 162 seriously ill hospitalized patients who survived 2 months after CPR. Analysis of clinical characteristics associated with worse functional outcome., Results: Among 162 survivors of in-hospital CPR, 56% had the same or improved function and 44% had worse function at 2 months compared with functional status before CPR. Patients with worse function deteriorated by a mean of 3.9 activities of daily living and were less likely to survive to hospital discharge (P < .001) or to 6 months after study entry (P < .001). Worse functional outcome was associated with greater age and longer hospital stay before CPR., Conclusions: More than half of CPR survivors had preserved functional status 2 months after CPR. However, patients with worse function are profoundly disabled. In anticipation of possible severe disability after CPR, preferences for care in such health states should be discussed with patients before the need for CPR, particularly among older patients and those with long hospital stays.

Background: During serious illness, patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments play an important role in medical decisions. However, little is known about life-sustaining preference stability in this population or about factors associated with preference change., Methods: We evaluated 2-month cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preference stability in a cohort of 1590 seriously ill hospitalized patients at 5 acute care teaching hospitals. Using multiple logistic regression, we measured the association of patient demographic and health-related factors (quality of life, function, depression, prognosis, and diagnostic group) with change in CPR preference between interviews., Results: Of 1590 patients analyzed, 73% of patients preferred CPR at baseline interview and 70% chose CPR at follow-up. Preference stability was 80% overall-85% in patients initially preferring CPR and 69% in those initially choosing do not resuscitate (DNR). For patients initially preferring CPR, older age, non-African American race, and greater depression at baseline were independently associated with a change to preferring DNR at follow-up. For patients initially preferring DNR, younger age, male gender, less depression at baseline, improvement in depression between interviews, and an initial admission diagnosis of acute respiratory failure or multiorgan system failure were associated with a change to preferring CPR at follow-up. For patients initially preferring DNR, patients with substantial improvements in depression score between interviews were more than 5 times as likely to change preference to CPR than were patients with substantial worsening in depression score., Conclusions: More than two thirds of seriously ill patients prefer CPR for cardiac arrest and 80% had stable preferences over 2 months. Factors associated with preference change suggest that depression may lead patients to refuse life-sustaining care. Providers should evaluate mood state when eliciting patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatments.

Purpose: For patients hospitalized with serious illnesses, we identified factors associated with a stated preference to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), examined physician-patient communication about these issues, and determined the relationship of patients' preferences to intensity of care and survival., Patients and Methods: The study was a cross-sectional evaluation of patient preferences. The setting was five geographically diverse academic acute-care medical centers participating in the SUPPORT (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments) project. Study participants were hospitalized patients > or = 18 years of age with 1 of 9 serious illnesses who were interviewed between days 3 and 6 after qualifying for the study. Using standardized interviews, patients provided information on demographics, preferences for CPR and other treatments, quality of life, functional status, perceptions of prognosis, and whether the patient had discussed CPR preferences with his or her physician. Data abstracted from the medical record included physiologic measures, therapeutic intensity, whether CPR was provided, and whether there was a do-not-resuscitate order., Results: Of 1,995 eligible patients, 84% were interviewed (mean age 62 years, 58% men, inhospital mortality 7%, 6-month mortality 33%). Of the respondents, 28% did not want CPR. Factors associated independently with not wanting CPR included: hospital site; diagnosis; being older; being more functionally impaired; and patient perception of a worse prognosis. Only 29% of patients had discussed their preferences with their physician; 48% of those who did not want CPR reported such discussions. After adjusting for illness severity and factors associated with CPR preferences, patients not wanting CPR had lower intensity of care; similar inhospital mortality; and higher mortality at 2 and 6 months following study entry., Conclusions: The diagnosis, patients' perception of the prognosis, and hospital site were significantly associated with patients' resuscitation preferences after adjusting for patient demographics, severity of illness, and functional status. The rate of discussing CPR was low even for patients who did not want CPR. Patient preferences not to receive CPR were associated with a small decrease in intensity of care but no difference in hospital survival.

Objective: To describe the association between hospital resource utilization and physicians' knowledge of patient preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among seriously ill hospitalized adult patients., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Five U.S. academic medical center, 1989-1991., Patients: A sample of 2,636 patients with self- or surrogate interviews and matching physician interviews describing patient preferences for CPR, from a cohort of 4,301 patients with life-threatening illnesses enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)., Measures: Patient, surrogate, and physician reports of preferences for resuscitation, and resource use derived from the Therapeutic Intensity Scoring System and hospital length of stay, converted into 1990 dollars., Results: Nearly one-third of the patients preferred to forego resuscitation. Of the 2,636 paired physician-patient answers, nearly one-third did not agree about preferences for resuscitation. The physicians' views of the patients' preferences and those preferences themselves were both associated with resource use. Standardized adjusted hospital resource consumption, expressed as average cost in dollars during the enrollment hospitalization, was lowest when the physician agreed with the patient preference for a do-not-resuscitate order ($20,527), and highest when the patient did not have a preference and the physician believed the patient wanted resuscitation in the case of a cardiopulmonary arrest ($34,829). Hospital resource use was intermediate when patient-physician pairs evidenced either lack of agreement or communication, or awareness of options about resuscitation., Conclusions: Both physician and patient preferences for CPR influence total hospital resource consumption. Physician misunderstanding of patient preferences to forego CPR was associated with increased use of hospital resources, and could have led to a course of care at odds with patients' expressed preferences in the event of cardiac arrest. Increasing physicians' knowledge of patient preferences, and increasing communication to help patients understand that options for medical care that include foregoing resuscitation efforts, might reduce hospital expenditures for the seriously ill.

Objective: To describe the association between hospital resource utilization and physicians' knowledge of patient preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among seriously ill hospitalized adult patients.Design: Prospective cohort study.Setting: Five U.S. academic medical center, 1989-1991.Patients: A sample of 2,636 patients with self- or surrogate interviews and matching physician interviews describing patient preferences for CPR, from a cohort of 4,301 patients with life-threatening illnesses enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT).Measures: Patient, surrogate, and physician reports of preferences for resuscitation, and resource use derived from the Therapeutic Intensity Scoring System and hospital length of stay, converted into 1990 dollars.Results: Nearly one-third of the patients preferred to forego resuscitation. Of the 2,636 paired physician-patient answers, nearly one-third did not agree about preferences for resuscitation. The physicians' views of the patients' preferences and those preferences themselves were both associated with resource use. Standardized adjusted hospital resource consumption, expressed as average cost in dollars during the enrollment hospitalization, was lowest when the physician agreed with the patient preference for a do-not-resuscitate order ($20,527), and highest when the patient did not have a preference and the physician believed the patient wanted resuscitation in the case of a cardiopulmonary arrest ($34,829). Hospital resource use was intermediate when patient-physician pairs evidenced either lack of agreement or communication, or awareness of options about resuscitation.Conclusions: Both physician and patient preferences for CPR influence total hospital resource consumption. Physician misunderstanding of patient preferences to forego CPR was associated with increased use of hospital resources, and could have led to a course of care at odds with patients' expressed preferences in the event of cardiac arrest. Increasing physicians' knowledge of patient preferences, and increasing communication to help patients understand that options for medical care that include foregoing resuscitation efforts, might reduce hospital expenditures for the seriously ill. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents the diagnoses of seriously ill patients who refused to have CPR. COPD; Metastatic Cancer; Colon cancer; Multiorgan system failure with malignancy or with sepsis; Acute respiratory failure; Localized cancer; Congestive heart failure; Cirrhosis.