Search

A few weeks ago, Texas took an unprecedented position on unilateral DNRs by passing Senate Bill (SB) 11, which requires patient/surrogate consent for writing DNR orders. The motivation behind the bill was based on the drafters' beliefs that physicians frequently write unilateral DNR orders. SB 11, however, does not stop at requiring physicians to seek consent for DNR orders. Instead, the legislation uncharacteristically exceeds what is typically within the scope and role boundaries for lawmakers by legislating how physicians discuss and implement DNR orders. We contend that this bill is ethically problematic and will have far-reaching, negative consequences that will affect how critical care medicine is practiced. In what follows, we describe how proponents' arguments rely on several ethical assumptions, and we describe potential negative impacts stemming from this legislation. Finally, we offer an alternative approach that would mitigate proponents' concerns. We believe SB 11 and our analytic deconstruction of it should serve as "lessons learned" for other states considering similar legislation.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the clinical characteristics and factors associated with mortality in very elderly patients ≥ 90 y of age admitted to the ICU. METHODS: We evaluated age-specific rates of admission and mortality in 16,935 subjects ≥ 18 y old and retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 155 (0.92%) subjects ≥ 90 y old admitted to the ICU from January 2003 to July 2012. The clinical mortality index was defined as the ICU mortality rate associated with clinical risk factors including poor nutrition, do not resuscitate (DNR) order, pneumonia, chronic renal failure, cancer, mechanical ventilation, use of a vasopressor, and admission from a ward. RESULTS: The mortality rate of ICU subjects ≥ 90 y of age was 32.3%. A Cox's regression hazard model revealed that high glucose ( P = .006), poor nutrition ( P = .001), high Simplified Acute Physiology Scoring II scores ( P < .001), DNR order ( P = .002), and vasopressor treatment ( P = .03) were independent predictive factors of mortality in subjects ≥ 90 y of age admitted to the ICU. An increasing number of clinical risk factors was associated with progressively higher mortality rates. All subjects with more than 5 risk factors died. CONCLUSIONS: The very elderly subjects (≥ 90 y) admitted to the ICU had a higher mortality rate compared with subjects of other ages. High Simplified Acute Physiology Scoring II scores, poor nutritional status, high glucose, use of vasopressors, and DNR orders should be considered as important predictors of mortality in very elderly ICU patients. The level of ICU treatment should be carefully considered in very elderly patients presenting with 5 or more risk factors.

The purpose of this study was to compare and analyse attitudes towards death and perceptions of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders between the elderly living in a facility and those living at home, in order to provide basic data for effective nursing interventions to help the elderly prepare for death in a positive manner. The subjects of this study were 300 persons over 65 years old who lived in a facility or home in Seoul or Gyeonggi Province, South Korea, and data were collected from 1 April to 15 August 2012. Descriptive analysis, χ(2)-test, and ANCOVA were conducted on the data using the SPSS version 20.0 program. With regard to attitudes towards death, the elderly in a facility reported that physical pain relief was most necessary for a comfortable death, and the elderly living at home reported that psychological stability was most required. With regard to perceptions of DNR orders, most of the participants agreed that DNR is sometimes necessary (institution: 86.7%, home: 78.7%). About 8% more of the elderly living in a facility considered DNR to sometimes be necessary compared with the elderly living at home. In conclusion, the elderly living in a facility were interested in physical pain relief or physical health, and the elderly living at home were focused on psychological stability or psychological health. Based on the findings, basic data for development of effective nursing interventions to help the elderly prepare for death in a positive manner can be provided.

International audience; BackgroundThe “Do Not Resuscitate” orders (DNR) are defined as advance medical directives to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation during cardiac arrest. Age-related multimorbidity may influence the DNR decision-making process. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data examining the relationship between DNR orders and multimorbidity in older patients.MethodsA systematic Medline and Cochrane literature search limited to human studies published in English and French was conducted on August 2012, with no date limits, using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: “resuscitation orders” OR “do-not-resuscitate” combined with “aged, 80 and over” combined with “comorbidities” OR “chronic diseases”.ResultsOf the 65 selected studies, 22 met the selection criteria for inclusion in the qualitative analysis. DNR orders were positively associated with multimorbidity in 21 studies (95%). The meta-analysis included 7 studies with a total of 27,707 participants and 5065 DNR orders. It confirmed that multimorbidity were associated with DNR orders (summary OR = 1.25 [95% CI: 1.19–1.33]). The relationship between DNR orders and multimorbidity differed according to the nature of morbidities; the summary OR for DNR orders was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07–1.23) for cognitive impairment, OR=2.58 (95% CI: 2.08–3.20) for cancer, OR=1.07 (95% CI: 0.92–1.24) for heart diseases (i.e., coronary heart disease or congestive heart failure), and OR=1.97 (95% CI: 1.61–2.40) for stroke.ConclusionsThis systematic review and metaanalysis showed that DNR orders are positively associated with multimorbidity, and especially with three morbidities, which are cognitive impairment, cancer and stroke.

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are an important part of advance directives. To date, little is known about DNR orders in Ontario's long-term care (LTC) facilities. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) stated that in between 2011 and 2012, there were more than 32,000 discharges from Ontario's LTC facilities, 44% of which resulted from death. This study examined DNR orders in LTC homes in Ontario. The sample includes all LTC residents receiving care between 2010 and 2012. Data provided by the CIHI were collected using the Canadian version of the Resident Assessment Instrument. The data included administrative assessments on health of 112,746 residents. The average age of LTC residents in this study was 84.5 years, and about 70% were female residents. Results showed that residents admitted from home were less likely to have a DNR order on file during assessment and three months later. Residents whose families were responsible for care were more likely to have DNR orders when admitted, but this effect was not found at three-month follow-up. Residents who were in end-stage diseases were more likely to have completed DNR orders upon admission to LTC facilities. The presence of a health condition (eg frailty, depression, heart condition, pulmonary or psychiatric condition) increased the likelihood of residents having DNR orders when admitted to LTC facilities. Residents whose conditions were deteriorating were more likely to have completed DNR orders before the three-month follow-up. In conclusion, this study represents an important step in identifying issues related to DNR orders in LTC facilities. The factors that influence whether residents have DNR orders on file upon admission depend on the presence of family members, whether the residents are designated as end-of-life cases (six months or less), older age, and health. Discussions about resuscitation are an important part of care plans.

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review is to assess if Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders should be routinely rescinded during anesthesia, determine if consensus on retaining DNR orders exists in the literature, and explore the current state of clinical practice. Design This systematic review followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Methods In June 2018, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed databases were systematically searched using defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Findings Ninety-one articles from the databases were pooled with 16 works identified as formative to the research questions. Forty-nine articles were analyzed and included in this study. Conclusions It is unethical to automatically rescind DNR orders during anesthesia. Patients have the right to retain their DNR orders unaltered or modify them for the perianesthesia period. Sufficient evidence exists to create meaningful policy at every level. A consensus exists among professional organizations that the standard of care is a required reconsideration of DNR orders before anesthesia.

Elderly patients who have preexisting DNR orders experience a high incidence of mortality and major morbidity within 30 days after emergency general surgery. Although not a risk factor for major morbidity, preoperative DNR status does represent an independent risk factor for mortality after emergency general surgery. The most plausible reason for the excess mortality in DNR patients is their decreased willingness to undergo aggressive treatment of major postoperative complications. Whether patient-driven failure-to-pursue-rescue also explains to some extent the high mortality of non-DNR elderly emergency general surgery patients deserves further investigation.

Background The influence of socio-economic and religious background on decisions made by parents of children with incurable cancer regarding DNR orders is not fully understood. Procedure A retrospective analysis of medical charts of patients who died between January 2000 and January 2011 was performed. The following data were sought: written evidence of DNR discussion with parents, religious background, educational level, monthly income. Results There was evidence of a discussion on DNR in 73/90 charts. DNR consent was obtained in 14/17 (82.4%) cases where at least one parent had >15 years of education versus in only 24/45 (53.3%) cases where both parents had ≤15 years education as determined by univariate analysis (P = 0.03). DNR consent was also more likely to be obtained among parents of children with income >10,000 NIS (24/30, 80.0% vs. 20/38, 52.6%, P = 0.013). Parents of Jewish (22/30, 73.3%), Islamic (16/26, 61.5%), and Christian (8/9, 88.9%) background were equally likely to provide DNR consent. However, Druze families were less likely to do so (2/8, 25.0%, P = 0.036). Conclusions The process of decision-making to a DNR request was associated with parents' educational level and monthly family income, and not by religious background, with the exception of Druze families. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2014;61:265–268. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: There is growing awareness of the need for advanced care planning in patients with COPD. The appropriate moment to discuss DNR orders in these patients remains a difficult clinical decision. Aims and objectives: To evaluate the use and time point of DNR orders as part of advanced care planning in COPD patients in a tertiary care centre in Belgium. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patient files of 569 COPD patients with a median follow-up (FU) of years (median + IQR). Results: 30 patients were excluded for undergoing lung transplantation or lost to FU. 345 patients received no DNR order, of whom 94 (27%) died (median FU 2557 days). 194 patients received a DNR order, of whom 149 (82%) died (median FU 2583 days). Patients with DNR had lower FEV1 (44% pred. vs. 56% pred.). Median time between first DNR order and death was 163 days; 28% and 43% died within 30 days and 90 days, respectively. 50% died in hospital; 12% died in the ICU or ER. Most frequent DNR order was 9no CPR and no intubation9 (40%); most frequent motivation was 9poor respiratory status9 (65%). The majority (86%) of DNR orders were written during hospitalization, of which 20% in the ICU or ER. Only 19 out of 539 patients (4%) got DNR orders during outpatient visits. Conclusions: COPD patients receiving a DNR order have a high probability of dying. The majority of DNR orders is made during hospitalization, with only 4% during stable conditions in ambulatory FU. These data are reflecting the difficulties with advanced care planning in COPD.

End-of-life decisions and advance directives require timely physician-patient discussions but barriers exist to these discussions.To evaluate the influence of physician and patient gender on the timing of inpatient do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders.Retrospective cohort study.All adult patients (≥18 years) with cancer who received inpatient DNR orders at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2011 and December 2013.Gender interaction between physicians and patients towards timing of the DNR order.We identified 4,157 unique patients with a cancer diagnosis. These patients were treated by 353 physicians, of whom 123 (34.8%) were females and 230 (65.2%) were males. Multivariate analysis showed female patients were 1.3 times more likely to have early DNR orders written during hospital admission than were male patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.50). When comparing gender interaction between physicians and patients, our results showed that female physicians were 1.5 times more likely to write early DNR orders with their female patients than for their male patients (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.94). Same gender physician-patient dyads were not found between male physician and their patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.31). Higher age, more comorbid conditions, and progression of diseases were also associated with early DNR orders (all p 0.01).Female patients are more likely to receive early DNR orders from their female physicians. Gender and gender interaction between physician and patients may potentially influence the timing of receiving DNR order.

Purpose: The effect of capacity strain in an ICU on the timing of end-of-life decision making is unknown. We sought to determine how changes in strain impact timing of new DNR orders and of death. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 9,891 patients dying in the hospital following an ICU stay ≥ 72 hours in Project IMPACT, 2001-2008. We examined the effect of ICU capacity strain (measured by standardized census, proportion of new admissions, and average patient acuity) on time to initiation of DNR orders and time to death for all ICU decedents using fixed-effects linear regression. Results: Increases in strain were associated with shorter time to DNR for patients with limitations in therapy (predicted time to DNR 6.11 days for highest versus 7.70 days for lowest quintile of acuity, p=0.02; 6.50 days for highest versus 7.77 days for lowest quintile of admissions, p

Aim: Most analyses of end of life decisions in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) have come from Europe ⁄ English-speaking countries. Would decisions be different in Latin American NICUs? Therefore, we aim to evaluate the approach to dying infants ⁄ families in NICUs in Latin America. Methods: Multinational descriptive study of all deaths in babies born at >22 weeks in eight NICUs in five Latin American countries. Deaths were categorized as: (i) no Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or life support offered; (ii) life support initiated but do not resuscitate (DNR) orders written or no CPR provided; (iii) full life support and CPR; and (iv) unclassifiable. Results: There were 100 deaths, 81% in >27 weeks. Seventeen infants received no CPR ⁄ life support at birth, 10 died in DR and seven in NICU. There were 27 infants in group 2, 54 in group three and two in group 4. No baby had care withdrawn or care withdrawn ⁄ CPR withheld. Thirty-two infants had ‘do not resuscitate’ order. Decisions without parents’ involvement in 15%, both parents present at death 24% and sedatives ⁄ narcotics documented 14%. Conclusions: Latin American NICUs differ from those in Northern Europe ⁄ Englishspeaking countries. More deaths are accompanied by full life support and CPR. DNR orders are rare. Withdrawal of life support is virtually non-existent. Latin American’s doctors are more likely to make decisions without the objections of family about withholding life-sustaining treatment.

Abstract In medical practice in Germany and several other countries abbreviated orders linked to end-of-life decisions, such as DNR (do not resuscitate), are increasingly used. In order to investigate their legal status, this article gives an overview of the recently passed German law, which regulates the process of end-of-life decision-making and the use of living wills, giving primacy to patient autonomy. Concerning the risk of misinterpretation of acronyms, the article describes the impacts of such orders on patient autonomy and safety and suggests a clear systematic classification of the different DNR orders in order to investigate their legal status under the German law. Their general binding force is to be acknowledged, depending on its origination and the fulfilment of certain requirements.

10027Background: Previous studies have suggested that racial disparities exist for DNR orders in cancer patients. We examined racial differences in DNR orders for pancreatic cancer patients in an u...

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and implementation vary among institutions. Without clear documentation and communication, DNR orders may be a source of misunderstanding among health care team members. A DNR order must be clearly defined so that patients, family members, and the health care team understand patient wishes if a life-threatening event occurs. A DNR order does not mean that patients are "giving up" or refusing treatment to make their life more comfortable or improve their quality of life. A DNR order identifies the decision of a patient and care team regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation during a life-ending event. Often patients who have a DNR order may require palliative surgical intervention; this may present a challenge for nurses caring for a patient. This article discusses the ethical issues and methods of respecting DNR work orders for patients undergoing surgery and the role of palliative surgery in addressing quality of life and care issues.

Determining resuscitation status (RS) for inpatients with advanced cancer is emotionally charged and often conflictual. Available data suggest that clinicians have inconsistent practices when establishing and documenting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Lack of standardization may contribute to ineffective and unclear discussions regarding RS. To inform revisions of DNR order forms used at one comprehensive cancer center, we surveyed National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs) to determine if a standardized approach to documenting inpatient DNR orders exists.Over a 12-week period in 2002-2003, the 50 NCICCs providing inpatient care were contacted regarding participation in this Institutional Review Board-approved study. Using a 69-item database, inpatient DNR order forms were analyzed for content and elements of process used to establish and document RS. Each form was evaluated by two raters to assess inter-rater reliability. Analysis was descriptive; inter-rater agreement was summarized using the kappa statistic.Sixty percent (30 out of 50) of NCICCs participated. Eighty percent of responding sites confined the order process exclusively to cardiopulmonary resuscitation and did not include other interventions for possible limitation. Two thirds of responding sites used preformatted order forms specific for establishing inpatient RS; forms varied widely in content and elements of process used to establish and document DNR orders.NCICCs do not have a standardized approach to establishing and documenting DNR orders. Lack of standardization may reflect the absence of a common understanding of these difficult issues which may contribute to unclear and ineffective communication when addressing RS.

After patients survive an in-hospital cardiac arrest, discussions should occur about prognosis and preferences for future resuscitative efforts.To assess whether patients' decisions for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders after a successful resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest are aligned with their expected prognosis.Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 26,327 patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after in-hospital cardiac arrest between April 2006 and September 2012 at 406 US hospitals. Using a previously validated prognostic tool, each patient's likelihood of favorable neurological survival (ie, without severe neurological disability) was calculated. The proportion of patients with DNR orders within each prognosis score decile and the association between DNR status and actual favorable neurological survival were examined.Do-not-resuscitate orders within 12 hours of ROSC.Likelihood of favorable neurological survival.Overall, 5944 (22.6% [95% CI, 22.1%-23.1%]) patients had DNR orders within 12 hours of ROSC. This group was older and had higher rates of comorbidities (all P .05) than patients without DNR orders. Among patients with the best prognosis (decile 1), 7.1% (95% CI, 6.1%-8.1%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate of favorable neurological survival was 64.7% (95% CI, 62.8%-66.6%). Among patients with the worst expected prognosis (decile 10), 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-37.8%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate for favorable neurological survival was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.7%) (P for both trends.001). This pattern was similar when DNR orders were redefined as within 24 hours, 72 hours, and 5 days of ROSC. The actual rate of favorable neurological survival was higher for patients without DNR orders (30.5% [95% CI, 29.9%-31.1%]) than it was for those with DNR orders (1.8% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.0%]). This pattern of lower survival among patients with DNR orders was seen in every decile of expected prognosis.Although DNR orders after in-hospital cardiac arrest were generally aligned with patients' likelihood of favorable neurological survival, only one-third of patients with the worst prognosis had DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders had lower survival than those without DNR orders, including those with the best prognosis.

Background Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are an important means to communicate end-of-life wishes. Previous studies have demonstrated variable prevalence of DNR orders among hospitalized trauma patients. Objective This study was conducted to identify the prevalence and type of DNR orders among trauma patients and to identify associations of DNR orders with injury severity, length of stay, and whether CPR was performed in cases of cardiac arrest. Methods In this retrospective study, medical records were reviewed for 263 trauma patients at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio, in 2014 with a DNR order. Results Among 3394 trauma patients in 2014, 263 (8%) patients had a DNR order. Participants were 43% male and 57% female. The mean age was 76 (range, 16-90 +) years. The most common mechanisms of injury included fall (n = 214, 81.4%) and motor vehicle collision (n = 16, 6.1%). Most DNR orders in this patient population were instituted during the hospitalization (n = 176, 67%). The most common types of advance directives included DNR order (n = 224, 85.2%), living will (n = 124, 47.2%), and durable power of health care attorney (n = 126, 47.9%). A minority of patients died during hospitalization (n = 100, 38.0%). Among patients who were deceased, 14 (14.0%) had CPR performed. Conclusions Among trauma patients with DNR orders, most DNR orders were instituted during the hospital admission. Most deceased patients with DNR orders did not have CPR performed during the hospital stay.

Ahmed Aljohaney, Yasser Bawazir Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Background: The purpose of this study was to analyze the perceptions and practices of internal medicine residents in the western region of Saudi Arabia regarding the implementation of do not resuscitate (DNR) orders to improve future training practices among physicians. Methods: Medical residents involved in training programs in the western region of Saudi Arabia, including Jeddah, Makah, Medinah, and Taif, were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, anonymous, online survey regarding DNR orders. The 16-question survey was distributed to residents in all training programs in the region using surveymonkey.com, and the results were collected and tabulated. Results: Of 364 residents, 157 completed the questionnaire, resulting in a 43% response rate. The study showed that most (66%) internal medicine residents in the western region of Saudi Arabia participate in DNR discussions with patients and family or surrogate decision-makers. In addition, 43% were observed by faculty members, and half of them (51.9%) reported feeling comfortable during these discussions. Furthermore, most residents believed that additional educational programs would enhance their competence in addressing issues related to DNR discussions. Conclusion: This study highlights the need for a structured curriculum to teach skills relating to end-of-life issues such as DNR orders to residents in the Saudi Arabian medical system. The majority of residents surveyed believe they would benefit from additional training in DNR discussions. Therefore, an evidence-based curriculum providing instruction for improving discussions regarding DNR orders would improve physician confidence and effectiveness in caring for critically ill patients. Keywords: medical residents, do not resuscitate, internal medicine training program, Saudi Arabia

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are an important part of end-of-life care (EOL) for patients with incurable advanced lung cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical factors related to the acceptance of DNR orders by Chinese patients. This study was a retrospective analysis involving patients with advanced-stage (IIIB or IV) lung cancer who died in hospital at our center from August 2004 through August 2014. The patients’ clinical characteristics and DNR forms were reviewed. Of the 348 patients enrolled, 260 (74.7 %) provided DNR orders signed only by surrogates. The signing rate of DNR orders increased annually. The median interval from signing a DNR order to death was 1 day (range, 0–72 days). Patients with poor performance status (PS) (≥2) 1 week prior to death (OR, 3.395; 95 % CI, 1.536–7.502, P = 0.003) and relatively longer overall survival (OS) (>3 months) (OR, 2.464; 95 % CI, 1.566–4.472, P

Some institutions require patients and families to give signed consent for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, especially in New York State. As this may be a barrier to discussions about DNR orders,we changed a signed consent policy to a witnessed verbal consent policy,simplified and modified the DNR order forms, and educated the staff at 1 hospital, comparing the effects with an affiliated hospital where the policy was not changed.Prospective natural experiment with intervention and comparison sites.Pre- and postintervention, we surveyed house officers' confidence and attitudes, reviewed charts to assess the number of concurrent care concerns (CCCs) addressed per DNR order (e.g., limits on intubation or blood products or need for hospice),and at the intervention hospital, measured the stress levels of surrogates consenting for DNR orders using the Horowitz Impact of Event Scale. We also surveyed staff perceptions about the policy following the change.At the intervention hospital, the percentage of house officers reporting low confidence in their ability to obtain consent for DNR orders declined postintervention (24% to 7%, P=.002), while there was no significant change at the comparison hospital (20% vs 15%, P=.45).Among intervention hospital house officers, there were declines in percent reporting difficulty talking to patients and families about DNR orders, but no significant changes at the comparison hospital.At the intervention hospital, the mean number of CCCs/DNR order Increased (1.0 pre to 4.2 post, P.001). but did not change significantly(1.2 pre to 1.4 post) at the comparison hospital. The mean total stress score for intervention hospital surrogates declined postintervention(23.6 to 17.3, P=.02), indicating lower stress. House officers(98%), attendings (59%), and nurses (79%} thought the new policy was better for families.The policy change was well received and associated with improved house officer attitudes, more attention to patients'concurrent care concerns, and decreased surrogate stress. The results suggest that DNR orders can be made simpler and clearer, and raise questions about policies requiring signed consent for DNR orders.

The decision to limit care for critically ill intensive care patients is not uncommon, and most deaths in the intensive care unit are now preceded by do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, which are regarded by some as a way to make death more humane and respect patient autonomy. When a patient receives a poor diagnosis the family needs to discuss the medical care and respect the patient's wishes. Many relatives hesitate to discuss these issues, because they wish to avoid discussing the idea of death or any serious change to the patient's condition. This article aims to address DNR orders and discuss the mechanisms available to achieve a good death for patients and their relatives, instead of enduring a distressing and undignified end.

This study investigated Finnish nurses’ experiences and views on end-of-life decision making and compared them with physicians’ views. For this purpose, a questionnaire was sent to 800 nurses, of which 51% responded. Most of the nurses had a positive attitude towards and respect for living wills, more often than physicians. Most also believed that a will had an effect on decision making. Almost all of the nurses considered it their responsibility to talk to physicians about respecting living wills. Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders were often interpreted to imply partial or complete palliative (symptom-orientated) care, which may cause confusion. Half of the nurses reported that a DNR decision was discussed always or often with a patient who was able to communicate; physicians were more positive in this respect. Surprisingly, many nurses (44%) stated that active treatment continued too long. Two-thirds thought that their opinions were taken into account sufficiently, even though only half believed that, in general, they had some impact.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the frequency and timing of "do not resuscitate" (DNR) orders among pediatric oncology patients with progressive solid tumors. A retrospective evaluation of the medical charts of 36 patients who died in our department over the last 4 years was made. There were 21 males and 15 females with a mean age of 10 years (range, 1-22 years). Fourteen patients had brain tumors, 12 had sarcomas, 5 had lymphomas, 4 had neuroblastomas, and 1 suffered from hepatocellular carcinoma. A DNR order was registered in the medical charts of 22 (61%) patients. The DNR was ordered within less than 24 h of death in 5 patients. Median time from DNR order until death was 5 days (range, 0.25-82 days). Place of death was home for 5 (14%) patients, 3 of whom had DNR orders; pediatric oncology ward for 28 (78%), 19 of whom had DNR orders); ICU for 3 (8%), none with a DNR order. Mean time from last day of anticancer treatment until death was 63 days in the group with DNR orders and 56.5 days in the group without DNR orders (p = NS). The study showed that (1) DNR orders were written in only about half the charts of patients with progressive cancer; (2) in several cases, DNR orders were given close to death; and (3) advanced discussion of DNR with parents is needed to reduce parental and medical staff stress accompanying the death of a child and optimizing management of the terminal phase of the disease.

An iatrogenic arrest is a cardiopulmonary arrest induced by a therapeutic effort. Frequently cardiopulmonary arrests during hemodialysis (HD) are iatrogenic. In this article I consider the question of what to do when a cardiopulmonary arrest occurs during HD in a patient with a do not resuscitate (DNR) order. I consider and reject four arguments to override the DNR order: the principle of nonmaleficence, the efficacy of resuscitation, proximate cause, and physician error. Instead, I argue that respect for patient autonomy and patient goals means that DNR orders must be respected unless there is compelling evidence that overriding the DNR would be consistent with the patient's goals. If such evidence is lacking, the physician has no moral choice but to follow the DNR order literally. As such, nephrologists need better communication with their patients regarding advance care planning and better documentation of their communication once it has occurred.

This article examines how patients with cancer construct and legitimate do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Semi-structured interviews with 23 outpatients attending an oncology clinic were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in accordance with discourse-analytic methodology. Results indicate some variability for participants regarding the meaning of DNR orders, which were nonetheless viewed as appropriate and desirable. The patient's subsequent death was legitimated primarily through the invocation of highly valorized discourses within Western society: nature, autonomy, and compassion. Non-compliance with DNR orders, or the instigation of CPR was seen as violating nature, infringing autonomy, and as uncompassionate. The combined effect was to construct dying as a natural event which is the concern of the individual patient and their family, endorsing medical non-intervention in the process. This research provides support, from the patients’ viewpoint, for a policy of non-intervention when death is imminent and inevitable, and for those questioning the wisdom of a default policy of initiating CPR on any hospitalized patient, especially those patients inevitably in the process of dying.

Schools face many issues regarding students with disabilities, including identification, assessment, and programming issues. Another major issue with which many schools may have to deal focuses on do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders for children with medical conditions. Should schools honor such orders, or are they obligated to ignore those orders as part of the requirements of state or federal laws? This article provides an overview of DNR orders and students with disabilities. Current interpretations of DNR orders from several states are presented.

Background: The factors determining DNR status in patients (pts) with cardiac arrest have not been well elucidated. Objective: The goal of our study was to assess impact of median household income and inter-hospital variation in utilization of DNR in Cardiac arrest. Methods: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2011 using the ICD-9-CM code for cardiac arrest (427.5) as principal diagnosis. We defined pts’ DNR status with ICD code - V49.86 as a secondary diagnosis. Pts with age < 18 were excluded. NIS represents 20% of all US hospital pts. We built a hierarchical two level model adjusted for multiple confounding factors. Discrimination power of models was assessed using c statistics. Inter class correlation (ICC) and Median Odds Ratio (MOR) were generated from the hierarchical model. Results: We identified 1854 pts (weighted: 8915) with cardiac arrest across 1854 hospitals in the US, out of which 1.87% pts (366 pts, weighted: 1755) opted for DNR. Pts with higher median household income had decreased utilization of DNR (OR, 95% CI, P-Value) in 4th quartile: 0.59, 0.45-0.78, p Conclusion: Our study highlights vast variation in utilization of DNR in randomly selected 2 different hospitals with cardiac arrest pts. It also indicates a disparity in utilization of DNR orders in Pts with higher median household income as compared to lower household income.

Aim: This study aimed to determine the frequency and determinant factors of do not resuscitate (DNR) orders in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) at a university hospital in China. Methods: Data collected from June 2010 to December 2012 for patients with ICH were retrospectively reviewed. The characteristics and care of patients with and without DNR orders and those with early (≤24 h) and late (>24 h) DNR establishment were compared. Results: Formal DNR orders were filed during hospitalization for 64/759 (8.4%) patients with complete medical records enrolled in this study. Patients with DNR orders were older on average (73.1 ± 10.1 vs. 56.0 ± 13.2 years; p < 0.001) and a larger proportion had pre-ICH comorbidity impacting dependency (87.5 vs. 17.0%; p < 0.001) than did those with no DNR order. Patients with DNR orders were in worse clinical condition on arrival than those without a DNR order, as judged by Glasgow Coma Scale scores, and more frequently had large hematoma volumes (78.1 vs. 39.7%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: DNR orders were not used commonly for patients with ICH in this Chinese sample. No relationship between ICH severity and DNR decision making was observed.

Background and Purpose— Decisions on life-sustaining treatments and the use of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders can affect early mortality after stroke. We investigated the variation in early DNR use after stroke among hospitals in California and the effect of this variation on mortality-based hospital classifications. Methods— Using the California State Inpatient Database from 2005 to 2011, ischemic stroke admissions for patients aged ≥50 years were identified. Cases were categorized by the presence or the absence of DNR orders within the first 24 hours of admission. Multilevel logistic regression models with a random hospital intercept were used to predict inpatient mortality after adjusting for comorbidities, vascular risk factors, and demographics. Hospital mortality rank order was assigned based on this model and compared with the results of a second model that included DNR status. Results— From 355 hospitals, 252 368 cases were identified, including 33 672 (13.3%) with early DNR. Hospital-level–adjusted use of DNR varied widely (quintile 1, 2.2% versus quintile 5, 23.2%). Hospitals with higher early DNR use had higher inpatient mortality because inpatient mortality more than doubled from quintile 1 (4.2%) to quintile 5 (8.7%). Failure to adjust for DNR orders resulted in substantial hospital reclassification across the rank spectrum, including among high mortality hospitals. Conclusions— There is wide variation in the hospital-level proportion of ischemic stroke patients with early DNR orders; this variation affects hospital mortality estimates. Unless the circumstances of early DNR orders are better understood, mortality-based hospital comparisons may not reliably identify hospitals providing a lower quality of care.

Background: Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders are one of many challenging issues in end of life care. Previous research has not investigated Muslim nurses' attitudes towards DNR orders. Aims: This study aims to investigate the attitude of Iranian nurses towards DNR orders and determine the role of religious sects in forming attitudes. Materials and Methods: In this descriptive-comparative study, 306 nurses from five hospitals affiliated to Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (TUOMS) in East Azerbaijan Province and three hospitals in Kurdistan province participated. Data were gathered by a survey design on attitudes on DNR orders. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) software examining descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Participants showed their willingness to learn more about DNR orders and highlights the importance of respecting patients and their families in DNR orders. In contrast, in many key items participants reported their negative attitude towards DNR orders. There were statistical differences in two items between the attitude of Shiite and Sunni nurses. Conclusions: Iranian nurses, regardless of their religious sects, reported negative attitude towards many aspects of DNR orders. It may be possible to change the attitude of Iranian nurses towards DNR through education.

Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders are those orders that direct non-initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. PURPOSE:To evaluate ethical implications of DNR orders in the clinical pratice. METHODS:The authors reviewed critically the major ethical issues associated with DNR orders, mainly focusing their risks and benefits, and the application of the Personalistic's view in this orders. RESULTS: Reaction to the widespread use of this orders is not universally positive, and concerns about its possible overuse and abuse have been raised. DNR orders alone can not resolve the complex problem of the terminally ill, patients and the therapeutic futility. CONCLUSION: From the Personalistic's point of view, in all instances, the physician must remain aware that her primary duty is to hold the patient's dignity.

Objective: Our primary objectives were to estimate how frequently emergency medical technicians with defibrillation skills (EMT-Ds) are forced to deal with prehospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, to assess their comfort in doing so, and to describe the prehospital care provided to patients with DNR orders in a system without a prehospital DNR policy (i.e., where resuscitation is mandatory). Methods: Using Dillman methodology, the authors developed a 13-item survey and mailed it to 382 of 764 EMT-Ds in the metropolitan Toronto area. Responses were evaluated using 5-point Likert scales, limited-option and open-ended questions. Narrative responses were categorized. Two authors independently categorized narrative responses from 20 surveys, and kappa values for agreement beyond chance were determined. Results: Among 382 EMT-Ds surveyed, 236 (62%) responded, of whom 221 (94%) answered the questionnaire. Overall, 126 of 219 (58%) indicated that they were called to resuscitate patients with DNR orders “sometimes,” “frequently,” or “all the time.” In such situations, 22 of 207 (11%) stated they would honour the DNR order and 55 of 207 (27%) would honour the order but appear to provide basic resuscitation, in order to adhere to mandatory resuscitation regulations. Willingness to honour a DNR order did not vary by years of emergency medical service. EMT-Ds cited concern for the family and the patient, fear of repercussions and conflict with personal ethics as key factors contributing to this ethical dilemma. If legally allowed to honour DNR orders, 212 of 221 (96%) respondents would be comfortable with a written order and 137 of 220 (62%) with a verbal order. Conclusion: Prehospital DNR orders are common, and a significant number of EMT-Ds disregard current regulations by honouring them. EMT-Ds would be more comfortable with written than verbal DNR orders. An ethical prehospital DNR policy should be developed and applied.

Purpose: To describe the perceptions of nurses regarding do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions in critical care settings. Design: A survey assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning DNR status was distributed to all critical care nurses who were registered with the provincial licensing body in Alberta, Canada, and held positions of staff nurse, educator, or manager. Methods: Four hundred and five surveys were completed and returned. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Findings: The term “DNR” was found to be ambiguous. The rationale for DNR orders were also not well articulated in practice. Although nurses believed that patients, families, and nurses should participate in DNR decisions, physicians were most often cited as being responsible for the decision. Conclusions: Documentation of a comprehensive patient treatment plan and awareness of the rationale for DNR designation are strategies suggested to help achieve desired patient care goals in critical care settings.

Too often, physicians, patients, and families make end-of-life care decisions despite poor physician-patient communication and misunderstanding by the patient and family about the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We describe an approach to resolving conflict and reaching consensus on end-of-life care. This approach supports physician judgment to withhold futile treatment within the constraints of law and patient autonomy.

We conducted an observational cohort study to determine if hospital-based, reinforcing regulatory and educational interventions could encourage physicians to discuss end-of-life (EOL) care with their patients. Specifically, we measured the effect of (1) administrative prompts to encourage discussions about EOL care and (2) a mandatory educational seminar focusing on EOL issues. Study subjects were patients consecutively admitted to the medicine service who faced an anticipated 3-year mortality rate of at least 50%. The main study endpoint was the frequency of documented EOL discussions between physicians and patients. In the inception cohort of 184 patients, physicians discussed EOL care with 64 patients (34.8%), and in the follow-up cohort of 121 patients, 41 individuals (33.9%) had documented discussions regarding EOL issues ( P = 0.90). Actual "Do Not Resuscitate"(DNR) orders were written for 53 patients (28.8%) in the inception cohort and for 33 persons (27.3%) in the follow-up cohort ( P = 0.71). We conclude that enhanced, mutually reinforcing regulatory and educational efforts focusing on EOL care proved ineffectual at promoting either discussions about EOL issues or the use of DNR orders.

OBJECTIVE: To report and analyse the pattern of end-of-life decision making for terminal Chinese cancer patients. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. SETTING: A cancer clinical trials unit in a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS: From April 1992 to August 1997, 177 consecutive deaths of cancer clinical trial patients were studied. MAIN MEASUREMENT: Basic demographic data, patient status at the time of signing a DNR consent, or at the moment of returning home to die are documented, and circumstances surrounding these events evaluated. RESULTS: DNR orders were written for 64.4% of patients. Patients in pain (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.89), especially if requiring opioid analgesia (odds ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.77), were factors associated with a higher probability of such an order. Thirty-five patients were taken home to die, a more likely occurrence if the patient was over 75 years (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.34), had children (odds ratio 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.79), had Taiwanese as a first language (odds ratio 6.74, 95% CI 3.04-14.93), or was unable to intake orally (odds ratio 2.73, 95% CI 1.26-5.92). CPR was performed in 30 patients, none survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: DNR orders are instituted in a large proportion of dying Chinese cancer patients in a cancer centre, however, the order is seldom signed by the patient personally. This study also illustrates that as many as 20% of dying patients are taken home to die, in accordance with local custom.

Chart review of patients who died in the hospital was used to describe the pattern of end-of-life decision-making and care for hospitalized dying patients and to propose a structured process of assessing the suitability of patients for palliative care. The setting was a large urban academic medical center, and the sample comprised 200 of 205 consecutive adult deaths during the first 4 months of 1996. The main outcome measures were identification of the patient as dying, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, and comfort care plans. Charts of 72% of the patients had evidence that they were considered dying. DNR orders were in place for 77% of all the patients, and 46% had comfort care plans. Presence of a health care proxy was significantly associated with DNR orders and comfort care plans ( P These findings suggest opportunities and challenges for improving practice patterns for hospitalized dying patients. We recommend several measurable objectives for evaluating end-of-life decision-making and care and propose the development of a goals of care assessment tool to guide appropriate transitions from life-sustaining treatment to comfort care and plan palliative services.

former 2 groups were based on timing of DNR orders with the designation either at admission or transitioned from full resuscitative care to DNR status, respectively. Outcomes were stratified based on CMS-endorsed risk adjustment models primarily including 30-day mortality, hospital readmissions, and death within 30 days of discharge. Finally, hospitals were separated into quintiles based on achievement of heart failure performance measures and results were then pared to include/exclude DNR orders. Roughly one quarter of patients had DNR orders at some point during the index hospitalization (15% on admission and 11% switched from full code at a later time). The 30-day mortality was 27%, 35%, and 3% for those with admission DNR, later DNR, and full code designations, respectively. Moreover, compared with patients with full resuscitative wishes, patients with the DNR orders tend to have a higher rate of death during index

The purpose of this study was to explore the policies and practices of nursing homes with respect to the resuscitation of residents who do not have a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. Responses from a survey of 36 facilities revealed that most residents had DNR orders and most facilities were capable of providing basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Less than 30% had performed CPR in the past 6 months, and 22.8% had no written CPR policies. More facilities required CPR in witnessed arrests of non-DNR residents (79.3%) than in unwitnessed arrests (24%). Methods for identifying CPR status need improvement to enable accurate identification and prompt resuscitation of residents who want CPR.

This paper examines issues in prison hospice care based on the author’s nine years experience as a prison hospice worker and trainer and on data gathered by the National Prison Hospice Association (NPHA) from a number of federal and state prison medical facilities with operational or developing hospice programs, including both scatter-bed and hospice unit models, employing inmate hospice volunteers and the services of outside community hospice agencies and volunteers. The paper discusses DNR orders and curative vs. palliative care decisions, pain management, AIDS care, interdisciplinary care teams, staff and volunteer training and supervision, and the need for compassionate early release and community placement programs. The author proposes a set of preliminary guidelines for the delivery of hospice care in the correctional setting. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com]

One of the most controversial ethical dilemmas faced by perioperative nurses, surgeons, and anesthesia care providers is the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order for a surgical patient. This article discusses informed consent, decision makers, laws and policy, DNR orders, and ethical considerations.

Aims: To assess patient receipt of written information. To ensure patients understand the written information about a resuscitation policy and to determine whether they disapproved of or had concerns about the policy. Methods: All admissions to four wards of the hospital were approached for an interview. A set questionnaire was asked by one of 2 interviewers. Results: 72% of 572 admissions were interviewed. Refusal accounted for only 2 of the people not interviewed. 11% were unable to advocate for themselves by reason of mental incompetence, inability to communicate or impairment secondary to their illness. Of the 401 interviewed only 49% recalled receiving the patient information booklet. Few patients (17%) recalled reading the information in the patient information booklet. They were all then given the paragraph about the hospital’s resuscitation policy. 352 were asked their understanding and only 61% demonstrated that they understood the paragraph. 91% of all 401 patients approved of the hospital having the option of DNR orders. 31% of people however had concerns related to DNR orders. These are discussed. Conclusions: Many acutely unwell patients are unable to advocate for themselves. Written information is a poor method of communicating with patients. There was limited receipt of the information and many misunderstood the paragraph about the hospitals resuscitation policy. There was a wide range of patient thoughts and concerns expressed.