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.

Objective: To evaluate whether nursing home residents and their families reported discussions about life-sustaining treatment with their physicians, the relationship between such discussions and orders to limit therapy, and predictors of physician-patient communication about life-sustaining treatment., Design: Cross-sectional interviews and retrospective chart abstraction., Setting: Three regions: West Coast, New England, Western., Sample: A total of 413 nursing home residents, 363 family/surrogate interviews, and 192 resident interviews., Main Outcome Measures: Measured were (1) physician-resident communication about life-sustaining treatment and (2) presence of an advance directive or do not resuscitate (DNR) order in resident's chart., Results: Seventy-four percent of residents had DNR orders, and 32% had advance directives; only 29% of residents reported discussions about life-sustaining treatment. Of residents with DNR orders who could have participated in discussions about life-sustaining treatment, nearly half reported they had not discussed CPR with their caregivers. Older age, longer duration of time living in nursing home, location in a New England nursing home, physician-family member discussion, and the presence of an advance directive in the medical chart were positively associated with having DNR orders. Physician-resident discussion was not associated with having a DNR order. For the subsample of interviewed residents, age and a diagnosis of cognitive impairment were negatively associated with a physician-resident discussion about life-sustaining treatment, whereas the likelihood of having a discussion increased with increasing numbers of medical diagnoses., Conclusions: Chart orders to limit therapy are common, but physician-resident discussions about life-sustaining treatments are not. Far more family members than residents report such discussions with the resident's physicians.

Objectives: Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders are increasingly common, though there has been little evaluation of their changing use. The authors contrasted the use and outcomes of DNR orders for nationally representative samples of Medicare patients hospitalized with specific diagnoses in 1981 to 1982 and 1985 to 1986., Methods: Using ordinary least squares regression to adjust for patient and hospital characteristics, the authors compared use, timing and predictors of DNR orders, and survival to hospital discharge of patients with DNR orders between the two time periods., Results: After adjustment for sickness at admission and for patient and hospital factors, more patients received DNR orders in 1985 to 1986 than in 1981 to 1982 (13% versus 10%, P < 0.001), with most of the increase among patients with the greatest sickness at admission. Disparity in DNR order use by age, diagnosis, functional status, preadmission residence, and gender found in 1981 to 1982 was still present in 1985 to 1986. DNR orders were written earlier in hospitalization during the latter time period. Patients with DNR orders were more likely to survive to hospital discharge in 1985 to 1986 than in 1981 to 1982 (44% versus 36%, P = 0.001), but their 30-day survival did not differ., Conclusions: Although use increased, disparities in DNR order assignment persisted in these 1980s data. Examination is needed into whether these differences persist and whether they reflect patient preferences. Systems should be developed to preserve and review the preferences of the increasing number of patients discharged after in-hospital DNR orders.

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.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of hospitalized patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and to identify variables that may elucidate the high mortality of patients with DNR orders., Methods: Among a nationally representative sample of Medicare patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, cerebrovascular accident, or hip fracture, we retrospectively studied in-hospital and 180-day mortality and hospital lengths of stay for patients without DNR orders, with early (day 1 or 2) DNR orders, and with late (day 3 or later) DNR orders, before and after adjustment for sickness at hospital admission and patient and hospital characteristics., Results: In-hospital mortality for patients with DNR orders exceeded that for patients without DNR orders before adjustment (59% vs 8%, P < .001), and after accounting for differences in sickness at admission and patient and hospital characteristics (40% vs 9%, P < .001). Sicker patients were assigned earlier DNR orders. Yet, patients with early DNR orders had a lower adjusted in-hospital mortality (31% vs 49%, P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (10 vs 18 days, P < .001) than did patients with late DNR orders., Conclusions: Hospitalized older patients with DNR orders have a much higher mortality than predicted by admission demographic and clinical characteristics. The differential association of early and late DNR orders with mortality indicates that DNR orders represent a heterogeneous group of interventions that may be a marker of unmeasured sickness and a determinant of quality of care. A better understanding of what the DNR order represents and its effect on patient care is needed to ensure optimal use.

Background: The relationship of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders to patient and hospital characteristics has not been well characterized., Methods: This observational study of a nationally representative sample of 14,008 Medicare patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, cerebrovascular accident, or hip fracture evaluated the relationship of DNR orders to patient sickness at admission, functional impairment, age, disease, race, gender, preadmission residence, insurance status, and hospital characteristics., Results: Of the 14,008 patients, DNR orders were assigned to 11.6%. Patients with greater sickness at admission and functional impairment received more DNR orders (P < .001) but even among patients in the sickest quartile (with a 65% chance of death within 180 days), only 31% received DNR orders. The DNR orders were assigned more often to older patients after adjustment for sickness at admission and functional impairment (P < .001), and DNR order rates differed by diagnosis (P < .001). After adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, DNR orders were assigned more often to women and patients with dementia or incontinence and were assigned less often to black patients, patients with Medicaid insurance, and patients in rural hospitals., Conclusions: Do-not-resuscitate orders are assigned more often to sicker patients but may be underused even among the most sick. Sickness at admission and functional impairment do not explain the increase in DNR orders with age or the disparity across diagnosis. Further evaluation is needed into whether variation in DNR order rates with age, diagnosis, race, gender, insurance status, and rural location represents differences in patient preferences or care compromising patient autonomy.