Search

Purpose Studies concerning do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in mainland China are rather scarce. We explored the prevalence and related factors of DNR orders among in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) patients at a general tertiary hospital in mainland China. Materials and Methods We identified all IHCA patients hospital-wide between July 2019 and September 2020. Data regarding DNR status were collected from medical records. We investigated the frequency of DNR orders and explored the determinant factors of DNR establishment using logistic regression. Results A total of 1154 IHCA patients were included, 535 (46.4%) of whom established DNR orders. The following variables were independently associated with a higher DNR rate: female (OR 1.491; 95% CI 1.130–1.965), older age (OR 1.016; 95% CI 1.008–1.024), being a local resident (OR 1.790; 95% CI 1.344–2.383), pulmonary infection (OR 1.398; 95% CI 1052–1.859), respiratory insufficiency (OR 1.356; 95% CI 1.009–1.823), shock (OR 1.735; 95% CI 1.301–2.313), acute stroke (OR 1.821; 95% CI 1.235–2.686),neurological dysfunction (OR 1.527; 95% CI 1.149–2.028) and cancer (OR 3.316; 95% CI 2.461–4.468). Counterintuitively, patients with new-onset coronary artery disease (OR 0.592; 95% CI 0.419–0.837) were less likely to create DNR orders. Conclusion In mainland China, the DNR order signing rate is low, and the establishment of a DNR order is associated with demographics and comorbidity characteristics.

This case examines perioperative suspension of a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order during surgery. The commentary considers the appropriateness of DNR orders; types of DNR order suspension in the context of alternative anesthesia techniques; and what is required from a surgeon, anesthesiologist, and patient or surrogate to reach a decision expressing the patient's best interest. It concludes by offering communication recommendations based on joint discussion and decision sharing.

Background and Objectives Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on cardiac arrest patients with Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders does not respect patients’ autonomy. We aimed to 1) determine the frequency of patients who wished to be DNR prior to cardiac arrest; 2) determine what proportion received CPR; and 3) explain why DNR patients received CPR. Methods This was a retrospective chart review study of cardiac arrest patients at an emergency department. We reported the frequency and proportion of patients who 1) had valid DNR orders presented at the time of cardiac arrest; 2) had valid DNR orders that were unavailable at the time of arrest 3) had Advanced Directives but no DNR orders; 4) had their DNR orders rescinded; and 5) wished to be DNR but did not have any documents in place. Results Of 419 patients, 65 (15.51%) wished to be DNR. Out of these 65 patients, 38 (58.46 %) patients were resuscitated. Among the 38 patients, 23 (60.52%) received CPR accordingly and 15 (39.47%) patients were inappropriately resuscitated. Conclusion In our sample of 419 patients, 65 (15.51%) did not want CPR in the event of cardiac arrest and 38 (9.06%) received CPR against their wishes. This was due to failure to document DNR orders, lack of recognition of documented valid DNR orders, and use of non-actionable Advanced Directives to relay patients’ wishes.

Context Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are common among children receiving palliative care, who may nevertheless benefit from surgery and other procedures. Although anesthesia, surgery, and pediatric guidelines recommend systematic reconsideration of DNR orders in the perioperative period, data regarding how clinicians evaluate and manage DNR orders in the perioperative period are limited. Objectives To evaluate perioperative management of DNR orders at a tertiary care children's hospital. Methods We reviewed electronic medical records for all children with DNR orders in place within 30 days of surgery at a tertiary care pediatric hospital from February 1, 2016, to August 1, 2017. Using standardized case report forms, we abstracted the following from physician notes: 1) patient/family wishes with respect to the DNR, 2) whether preoperative DNR orders were continued, modified, or suspended during the perioperative period, and 3) whether life-threatening events occurred in the perioperative period. Based on data from these reports, we created a process flow diagram regarding DNR order decision-making in the perioperative period. Results Twenty-three patients aged six days to 17 years had a DNR order in place within 30 days of 29 procedures. No documented systematic reconsideration took place for 41% of procedures. DNR orders were modified for two (7%) procedures and suspended for 15 (51%). Three children (13%) suffered life-threatening events. We identified four time points in the perioperative period where systematic reconsideration should be documented in the medical record, and identified recommended personnel involved and important discussion points at each time point. Conclusion Opportunities exist to improve how DNR orders are managed during the perioperative period.

Hospitalized patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders commonly require surgical procedures. When this occurs, the usual practice in our medical center is to suspend the DNR order during the perioperative period. Few studies provide the patient perspective regarding automatic DNR suspension. The research team used a mixed-method, nonexperimental qualitative study design to conduct audio-recorded interviews with 17 nonsurgical patients who had DNR orders. We studied the patients' understanding of DNR status and their expectations regarding the changing of this status if surgery were required. The patients in the study expected a discussion regarding any change in their DNR status before the day of surgery and thought they should have the option to maintain their DNR status.

PURPOSE Issues related to life and death are largely influenced by the culture and religious beliefs of a society. This research aimed to survey a sample of oncology nurses in Saudi Arabia about their attitude towards the do not resuscitate order (DNR). METHOD A cross-sectional design was employed. A survey was sent to 190 nurses in the Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) in King Fahad Medical City (KFMC). A total of 157 nurses with a diploma or higher degree agreed to participate in the study. RESULTS Many nurses showed a neutral attitude regarding DNR to cancer patients and/or their families 2.4 ± 0.4. Moreover, the results of the multiple logistic regression tests revealed that all the listed factors are not associated with the attitude towards DNR orders (P > .05). CONCLUSION It is generally believed that nurses the faith and background of nurses from Muslim countries has a profound influence on their attitude towards DNR. However, this was not the picture that was revealed by the results of this study. In this study, all the nurses made it clear that they wanted to know about the autonomy of patients in respect of DNR orders. IMPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE It is necessary to develop programmes that address the DNR order and respect patient autonomy and rights. Moreover, hospital policies that address the issues of DNR order are required for all end-of-life care.

BackgroundDo-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are commonly used after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and have been shown to be a predictor of mortality independent of disease severity. We determined the frequency of early DNR orders in ICH patients and whether a previously reported association with increased mortality still exists.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients discharged from non-federal California hospitals with a primary diagnosis of ICH from January 2013 through December 2014. Characteristics included hospital ICH volume and type and whether DNR order was placed within 24h of admission (early DNR order). The risk of in-hospital mortality was evaluated both on the individual and hospital level using multivariable analyses. A case mix-adjusted hospital DNR index was calculated for each hospital by comparing the actual number of DNR cases with the expected number of DNR cases from a multivariate model.ResultsA total of 9,958 patients were treated in 180 hospitals. Early DNR orders were placed in 20.1% of patients and 54.2% of these patients died during their hospitalization compared to 16.0% of patients without an early DNR order. For every 10% increase in a hospital's utilization of early DNR orders, there was a corresponding 26% increase in the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Patients treated in hospitals within the highest quartile of adjusted DNR use had a higher relative risk of death compared to the lowest quartile (RR 3.9 vs 5.2) though the trend across quartiles was not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe use of early DNR orders for ICH continues to be a strong predictor of in-hospital mortality. However, patients treated at hospitals with an overall high or low use of early DNR had similar relative risks of death whether or not there was an early DNR order, suggesting that such orders may not be a proxy for less aggressive care as seen previously.

Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is often shortened to “resuscitation” and refers to emergency procedures to maintain circulation when the heart has stopped beating and the lungs are struggling to work. It is often enough to restart the heart by applying chest compressions and to restore lung function by artificial ventilation thus maintaining circulatory flow and oxygenation during cardiac arrest. The word “revival” is used for “resuscitation” in Latin countries.

Background: End-of-life treatment decisions present special challenges for prehospital emergency providers. Paramedics regularly make value-laden choices that transcend technical judgment and professional skill, affecting the type of care, how and to whom it is provided. Changes in prehospital emergency care over the last decade have created new moral challenges for prehospital emergency providers; these changes have also accentuated the need for paramedics to make rapid and reasoned ethical judgments. Objective: The purpose of the study was to explore the decision-making process that occurs when prehospital emergency teams respond to an end-of-life call with a focus on how state authorized documents such as a Non-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (NHDNR) or Medical/Physician���s Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST/POLST) or lack thereof inform decision-making. This paper presents the specific circumstances that informed the need for intervention from Online Medical Direction (OLMD) framed in the perspectives and words of the prehospital providers seeking that assistance. Methods: This study involved in-depth in-person interviews with 50 providers to elicit participants��� experiences in their own words using a semi-structured interview instrument. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with permission. Results: Five themes emerged that illuminated how and when OLMD was involved in emergency end-of-life decisions: Termination of Resuscitation (TOR); Family Revoked DNR; Missing Documents; No Documents and No CPR; and Unusual Situations. Participants illustrated how the decision to terminate efforts was best-supported when it was made by collaboration between the on-scene provider and OLMD. Participants described ethical dilemmas when families asked them to initiate CPR in the presence of DNR orders and cognitive dissonance when CPR has been initiated but a valid DNR/MOLST is subsequently located. Conclusions: The study findings demonstrate the invaluable contribution of OLMD for complex end-of-life care decisions by prehospital providers, especially when there are difficult legal, ethical, and logistical questions. OLMD provides far more than technical support.

Some care home residents were wrongly subjected to decisions ruling out attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic, leading to potentially avoidable deaths, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has concluded.1 Advance instructions not to attempt CPR should a patient’s heart or breathing stop in future should be discussed with patients, if they have the capacity to consent, or with their family, and made on an individual basis. But amid fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed with covid-19 …

The daughter of a man who successfully fought to establish that patients have a right to be consulted on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has launched a High Court challenge against Matt Hancock, the health and social care secretary for England. Kate Masters has written a letter before action to Hancock after news reports suggested that blanket bans on CPR were being imposed during the covid-19 pandemic. In the letter, she called on Hancock to give an emergency direction to all healthcare professionals providing that “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) orders must not be imposed unless the patient or family have been …

Background: Issuing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders has seldom been an outcome in randomized clinical trials of advance care planning (ACP) interventions. The aim of this study was to examine whether an ACP intervention facilitating accurate prognostic awareness (PA) for patients with advanced cancer was associated with earlier use of DNR orders. Patients and Methods: Participants (n=460) were randomly assigned 1:1 to the experimental and control arms, with 392 deceased participants constituting the final sample of this secondary analysis study. Participants in the intervention and control arms had each received an intervention tailored to their readiness for ACP/prognostic information and symptom-management education, respectively. Effectiveness in promoting a DNR order by facilitating accurate PA was determined by intention-to-treat analysis using multivariate logistic regression with hierarchical linear modeling. Results: At enrollment in the ACP intervention and before death, 9 (4.6%) and 8 (4.1%) participants and 168 (85.7%) and 164 (83.7%) participants in the experimental and control arms, respectively, had issued a DNR order, without significant between-arm differences. However, participants in the experimental arm with accurate PA were significantly more likely than participants in the control arm without accurate PA to have issued a DNR order before death (adjusted odds ratio, 2.264; 95% CI, 1.036–4.951; P=.041). Specifically, participants in the experimental arm who first reported accurate PA 31 to 90 days before death were significantly more likely than their counterparts in the control arm who reported accurate PA to have issued a DNR order in the next wave of assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 13.365; 95% CI, 1.989–89.786; P=.008). Both arms issued DNR orders close to death (median, 5–6 days before death). Conclusions: Our ACP intervention did not promote the overall presence of a DNR order. However, our intervention facilitated the issuance of NDR orders before death among patients with accurate PA, especially those who reported accurate PA 31 to 90 days before death, but it did not facilitate the issuance of DNR orders earlier than their counterparts in the control arm.ClinicalTrial.gov Identification: NCT01912846

Explore surgical options within the context of goals of care in an elderly woman with end stage COPD who presents with a cecal volvulus. The surgeon guides us through discussions about whether or not to pursue surgery, if and for how long to rescind the DNR, how to deal with the inevitable complications and final decline of the patient, how to support colleagues, how to prognosticate, and how to use best-case/worst-case scenarios.

The Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) directive has provided a major leap in end-of-life care. To demonstrate the factors influencing physicians’ DNR decisions in King Fahd University Hospital in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, 42 physicians from the medical and surgical departments of the same center were requested to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Thirty-six questionnaires were completed and returned from a total of 42 distributed among physicians, making a response rate of 85.7%. Certain diagnostic categories increase the likelihood of issuing a DNR order for a patient. Neurological (58.3%) and cardiovascular (41.7%) diseases were the highest response among other diseases in influencing physicians’ decisions. In addition, other factors like lack of comorbidities (55.5%), age (52.7%), and previous intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and resuscitation (44.4%) showed an effect on the directive decisions of DNR among investigated physicians. However, weak palliative care in the hospital (11.1%), religious beliefs (5.5%), and gender (2.7%) were the least associated factors affecting physicians’ DNR decisions. This study addresses the influencing factors of DNR orders issuance among King Fahd Hospital of the University physicians. Physicians noted that cultural standards and religious beliefs do play a role in their decision-making but had less of an effect as compared to other clinical data such as comorbidities, age, and previous ICU admissions.

Introduction and Objective: The do not resuscitate (DNR) order is a decision taken by the patient or other people about medical care in the end stages of life to prevent resuscitation from causing cardiac or respiratory arrest. This study was conducted to evaluate the attitudes of patients' relatives in the end stages about DNR order. Materials and Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 150 relatives of patients who had been prescribed DNR orders were included in the educational hospitals affiliated to the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. The data collection tool was a researcher-developed questionnaire consisting of 29 attitudes questions related to DNR orders. The data were collected and analyzed in the SPSS software version 19 using descriptive tests. Results: According to the results of present study, although the relatives of pationts consider doctors thoroughly responsible for making decision related with DNR, and follow their order either way, they strongly disagree with a single doctor making individual decision in this domain. They believe that the patient and their relatives should be engaged in this decision. Although most participants tended to stay as close as possible to the patients and engage in patient care. Conclusion: Given that there are a few studies in Iran on the attitudes of patients and their relatives about DNR, and there are no specific rules and guidelines in this regard. It is recommended that further studies be conducted on the subject. Engaging of patients and families in this important decision is necessary.

Policies addressing limitations of medical therapy in patients with advanced medical conditions are typically referred to as Code Status (No Code) policies or Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) status polices. Inconsistencies in implementation, understanding, decision-making, communication and management of No Code or DNR orders have led to delivery of poorer care to some patients. Several experts have called for a change in the current approach. The new approach, Goals of Care paradigm, aims to contextualize the decisions about resuscitation and advanced life support within the overall plan of care, focusing on choices of treatments to be given rather than specifically on treatments not to be given. Adopting “Goals of Care” paradigm is a big step forward on the journey for optimizing the care for patients with advanced medical conditions; a journey that requires collaborative approach and is of high importance for patients, community and healthcare systems.

Background and Aims This study aims to assess current practices and perspectives of gastroenterologists on approaches to code status before inpatient endoscopy. Methods Self-reported data were obtained through a voluntary, anonymous survey of gastroenterologists and gastroenterology trainees in the United States (U.S.). The survey assessed respondents’ approach to, beliefs, and knowledge regarding inpatient periprocedural code status discussions. Results Four hundred thirty-six gastroenterologists and 83 trainees completed the survey. In patients with an existing do not resuscitate (DNR) order, respondents reversed the code status before endoscopy either all (40.8%, n = 212) or most of the time (18.3%, n = 95). When asked their personal opinion, 32.6% (n =169) supported automatic DNR reversal to full resuscitation attempt during a procedure, 18.5% (n = 96) supported that DNR orders could be sustained, and 48.7% (n = 253) supported offering limited resuscitation. Many gastroenterologists were unaware of institutional (40.7%, n = 211) or national (80.7%, n = 419) policies and a majority reported that a gastroenterology-specific guideline would be helpful (88.6%, n = 460). Conclusions Although the majority of gastroenterologists reverse DNR orders more than 75% of the time before endoscopy, many also believe patients should be allowed to remain DNR during a procedure and supported a third option for limited resuscitation. Most gastroenterologists were unaware of institutional policies or existing national guidelines. These findings suggest considerable variation in knowledge and current approaches regarding periendoscopic code status reversal.

The study aimed to evaluate the effects of an advance care planning (ACP) program on knowledge and attitudes concerning palliative care, and decisions regarding DNR orders in the older residents in a long-term care institution.A quasi-experimental design was used. Participants were cognitively unimpaired older residents in a long-term care institution in Taiwan. The experimental group (n = 29) received the intervention including an individual interview using an ACP handbook and a group patient education; whereas the control group (n = 28) received the group patient education only.There were significant positive effects of the ACP program on understanding of DNR and palliative care, willingness to sign a DNR order, and knowledge of and attitude towards palliative care; however, there was no significant effect on willingness to receive palliative care. Six participants signed the DNR order after the intervention compared to none in the control group.The ACP program can improve knowledge and attitudes towards palliative care in older residents in long-term care institutions.The ACP program could incorporate multiple components, including individual interview using ACP handbook and group patient education, and address knowledge and attitudes towards palliative care.

Objectives: To determine the level of awareness of outpatients, their preferences regarding the appropriate time for discussions regarding do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This cross-sectional, self-administered survey was conducted at King Fahd Medical City, a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between December 2012 and January 2013. Demographic parameters of the participants were analyzed by frequency distribution, and the data on their responses by percentage analysis. Results: The survey participants constituted 307 randomly selected outpatients/caregivers presenting for outpatient care at primary and tertiary care centers, 70% were female. Three-fourths of the participants had heard of DNR order, of which 50% defined it accurately. Ninety percent preferred a discussion while ill, and 10% while healthy. More than 70% expressed willingness to share the decision with their spouses/family members. Almost one-third believed DNR orders were consistent with Islamic beliefs, almost as many believed they were inconsistent, and almost a third did not take either position. Almost all the participants showed a willingness to learn more about the order. Conclusion: A divided opinion exists regarding religious and ethical aspects of the issue among the participants. However, almost all the participants showed a willingness to learn more about the DNR order. Saudi Med J 2017; Vol. 38 (3): 297-301 doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.3.18063 How to cite this article: Al Sheef MA, Al Sharqi MS, Al Sharief LH, Takrouni TY, Mian AM. Awareness of do-not-resuscitate orders in the outpatient setting in Saudi Arabia. Perception and implications. Saudi Med J . 2017 Mar;38(3):297-301. doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.3.18063.

Living wills are a form of advance directives that help to protect patient autonomy. They are frequently encountered in the conduct of medicine. Because of their impact on care, it is important to understand the adequacy of current medical school training in the preparation of physicians to interpret these directives.Between April and August 2011 of third and fourth year medical students participated in an internet survey involving the interpretation of living wills. The survey presented a standard living will as a "stand-alone," a standard living will with the addition an emergent clinical scenario and then variations of the standard living will that included a code status designation ("DNR," "Full Code," or "Comfort Care"). For each version/ scenario, respondents were asked to assign a code status and choose interventions based on the cases presented.Four hundred twenty-five students from medical schools throughout the country responded. The majority indicated they had received some form of advance directive training and understood the concept of code status and the term "DNR." Based on a stand-alone document, 15% of respondents correctly denoted "full code" as the appropriate code status; adding a clinical scenario yielded negligible improvement. When a code designation was added to the living will, correct code status responses ranged from 68% to 93%, whereas correct treatment decisions ranged from 18% to 78%. Previous training in advance directives had no impact on these results.Our data indicate that the majority of students failed to understand the key elements of a living will; adding a code status designations improved correct responses with the exception of the term DNR. Misunderstanding of advance directives is a nationwide problem and jeopardizes patient safety. Medical School ethics curricula need to be improved to ensure competency with respect to understanding advance directives.

Aim: The decision-making process for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order has always been challenging. Cultural and religious issues have limited the issuance and execution of DNR orders in Iran. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitude of the nurses, physicians, patients, and their families toward the DNR order. Subjects and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 343 participants (201 patients, 95 family members, and 47 healthcare providers) from Omid Oncology Hospital, Mashhad, Iran, were surveyed during 2017–2018. All the participants were asked to fill in a checklist of demographic information and a validated questionnaire about their attitude toward DNR orders after giving consent. The data were analyzed using SPSS software and values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Overall, 201 patients and 95 of their family members, as well as 47 healthcare providers (doctors and nurses), were surveyed. The mean age of participants was 48.75 ± 15.62 years. The attitude of the participants regarding the DNR order was significantly different in 10 of the 11 items (P ≤ 0.005). Among the three groups of participants, healthcare providers showed the most positive attitude regarding the DNR order. The attitude of participants regarding the DNR orders was significantly associated with age, occupation status, residential place, educational status, and income level (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Various factors, such as economic status, level of education, place of residence, and gender, can be effective on decision-making regarding the DNR orders. Unified and sustained education regarding moral and cultural issues can be helpful in the reconciliation of the attitudes between caregivers and patients.

The aims of this study were to investigate the reasons of transfers from long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) to emergency departments (EDs) of university hospitals in geriatric patients and to categorize the avoidable causes of these transfers. This retrospective multicenter study involved patients aged 65 years and older who were transferred from LTCHs to 5 EDs of university hospitals located in the metropolitan area of South Korea between January 2017 and December 2017. The expert panel reviewed and categorized the reason of transfers as avoidable or not. Moreover, we also investigated the number of patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) documents and the date these DNR documents were written. A total of 255,543 patients visited 5 EDs during the study period. Of these, 1,131 patients were from LTCHs. The number of potentially avoidable transfers was 168/1,131 (14.9%). The most common reason of avoidable transfers was noncritical diagnoses that could be assessed and managed in LTCHs (57.1%). There were 162 patients with DNR orders; of these, 12 had approved the DNR order before transfer. In conclusion, in Korea, potentially avoidable transfers could be reduced by managing noncritical diseases in LTCH and preparing advance care directives, including DNR orders, during admission to LTCH.

Formal communication of end-of-life preferences is crucial among patients with metastatic cancer. Our objective is to describe the prevalence of advance directives (AD) and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders among stage IV cancer patients with acute care surgery consultations, and the associated outcomes. This is a single institution retrospective review over an eight-year period. Two hundred and three patients were identified; mean age was 55.3 ± 11.4 years and 48.8 per cent were male. Fifty (24.6%) patients underwent exploratory surgery. Nineteen (10.6%) patients had another type of surgery. Twenty-one (10.3%) patients had a DNR order, and none had an AD on-admission. Fifty-four (26.6%) patients had a DNR order placed and four (2%) patients completed an AD postadmission. DNR postadmission was associated with the highest mortality at 42.6 per cent compared with 14.3 per cent for DNR on-admission and 1.56 per cent for full-code patients ( P < 0.001). Compared with patients that remained full-code and those with DNR on-admission, DNR postadmission was associated with longer length of stay (19.6 days; P < 0.001) and ICU length of stay (7.72 days; P < 0.001). The prevalence of AD and DNR orders among stage IV cancer patients is low. The higher in-hospital mortality of patients with DNR postadmission reflects the use of DNR orders during clinical decline.

The primary goal of this article is to improve end-of-life (EOL) care in the perioperative period. Clinicians should be able to understand the ethical and legal foundations for the "do-not-resuscitate" (DNR) order to help patients and their families make decisions about EOL care, understand the concept of "required reconsideration" for DNR orders prior to surgical procedures, acknowledge that DNR orders are based either on the patient's perception of their quality of life (QOL) or the physician's determination of medical futility as it relates to the patient's disease process, and appreciate the distinction between prolonging life and prolonging death in the perioperative setting.

BACKGROUND:Patients treated at 24/7 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have better outcomes than those treated at non-24/7 PCI centres. However, variation in outcomes between 24/7 PCI centres is not well studied. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate variation in outcomes among 24/7 PCI centres and to assess stability of 24/7 PCI centre performance. METHODS:Adult patients in the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Database with a "present on admission" diagnosis of cardiac arrest admitted to a 24/7 PCI centre from 2011 to 2015 were included. Primary outcome was good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge, cardiac catheterisation, and DNR orders within 24 h. Data were analysed using mixed effects logistic regression models. Hospitals were ranked each year and overall. RESULTS:Of 27,122 patients admitted to 128 24/7 PCI centres, 41%25 (11,184) survived and 27%25 (7188) had good neurologic recovery. Adjusted rates of good neurologic recovery (18%25-39%25; p,0.001), survival (32%25-51%25; p

Background The present study aimed to characterize factors associated with patients issued DNR orders during hospitalization who are discharged alive without any instruction orders by physicians regarding end-of-life treatment, with a focus on the timing of DNR order issuance. Methods In total, 2997 DNR cases from all 61,037 patients aged ≥20 years admitted to a representative general hospital in Tokyo were extracted and divided into two groups by patient hospital release status (discharged alive/deceased). Study items included age, sex, disease type (non-cancer/cancer), hospital department (internal medicine/others), timing of DNR order issuance, implementation (or not) of life-sustaining treatment (LST) or the presence of any restrictions on LST and hospital length of stay. We conducted multiple logistic regression analysis, setting hospital release status as the dependent variable and each above study item as explanatory variables. Results DNR orders were issued at a rate of 4.9%. The analysis revealed that patients with a DNR who were ultimately discharged alive were statistically more likely to be those for whom DNR orders are issued early after admission (adjusted odds ratio: AOR, 13.7), non-cancer patients (AOR, 3.4), internal medicine department patients (AOR, 1.63), females (AOR, 1.34), and elderly (aged ≥85 years; AOR, 1.02); these patients were also less likely to be receiving LST (AOR, 0.36). Conclusions By focusing on those with DNR orders who were ultimately discharged alive, we discovered that these patients were likely to have DNR orders issued early after admission, and that they were more likely to be elderly, female, non-cancer patients, or those in internal medicine departments. Further examination of these data may help to elucidate why these particular DNR-related characteristics (including socio-economic and cultural factors) are evident in patients who end up being discharged alive.

Masood Fallahi,1 Homayion Banaderakhshan,1 Alireza Abdi,1 Fariba Borhani,2 Rasool Kaviannezhad,3 Hassan Ali Karimpour4 1School of Nursing and Midwifery, 2Medical Ethics and Law Research Center, Medical Surgical Nursing Department, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 3Department of Anesthesia, Paramedical School, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, 4Critical Care, School of Medicine, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran Background: Physicians are responsible for making decisions about the do not resuscitate (DNR) order of patients; however, most of them are faced with some uncertainty in decision making and ethical aspects. Moreover, there are differences on decision making related to the DNR order among physicians, which may be related to the different attitudes toward this issue. Considering the lack of information, this study was performed to investigate doctors’ attitude about DNR order for patients in their final phases of life. Methods: In a descriptive–analytical study, 152 physicians were enrolled as quota sampling subjects from educational hospitals affiliated to the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. The tool used was a researcher-developed questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16 software by descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: The mean of attitude toward DNR was 3.22, for which the univariate t-test showed a significant positive attitude toward DNR (P=0.002); the mean of attitude number toward DNR was higher in physicians with higher education level (P=0.002). But this difference was not found in terms of age group, sex, and experiences in participating in DNR decisions. Conclusion: Due to the positive attitude of doctors toward DNR orders and lack of identified guidance, clear guidelines that comply with the Iranian Islamic culture are necessary to be established. Implementing this directive requires comprehensive training to various groups, including patients, doctors, nurses, administrators, and policy makers of the health system. Keywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, physicians, attitude

Eiji Hiraoka,1 Yosuke Homma,2 Yasuhiro Norisue,3 Takaki Naito,1 Yuko Kataoka,1 Osamu Hamada,1 Yo Den,1 Osamu Takahashi,4 Shigeki Fujitani3 1Department of Internal Medicine, 2Department of Emergency Medicine, 3Department of Critical Care Medicine, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Chiba, Japan; 4Department of Internal Medicine, StLuke’s International Hospital, Tokyo,Japan Background: Japan has no official guidelines for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Therefore, we investigated the effect of DNR orders on physician decision making in relation to performing noncardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and CPR procedures.Methods: A case-scenario-based questionnaire that included a case of advanced cancer, a case of advanced dementia, and a case of nonadvanced heart failure was administered to physicians. The questions determined whether physicians would perform different non-CPR procedures and CPR procedures in the presence or absence of DNR orders. The number of non-CPR procedures each physician would perform and the number of physicians who would perform each non-CPR and CPR procedure in the absence and presence of DNR ocrders were compared. Physicians from three Japanese municipal acute care hospitals participated.Results: We analyzed 111 of 161 (69%) questionnaires. Physicians would perform significantly fewer non-CPR procedures in the presence of DNR orders than in the absence of DNR orders for all three case scenarios (median [interquartile range] percentages: Case 1: 72% [45%–90%] vs 100% [90%–100%]; Case 2: 55% [36%–72%] vs 91% [63%–100%]; Case 3: 78% [55%–88%] vs 100% [88%–100%]). Fewer physicians would perform non-CPR and CPR procedures in the presence of DNR orders than in the absence of DNR orders. However, considerable numbers of physicians would perform electric shock treatment for ventricular fibrillation in the presence of DNR orders (Case 1: 26%; Case 2: 16%; Case 3: 20%).Conclusion: DNR orders affect physician decision making about performing non-CPR procedures. Although some physicians would perform CPR for ventricular fibrillation in the presence of DNR orders, others would not. Therefore, a consensus definition for DNR orders should be developed in Japan, otherwise DNR orders may cause harm. Keywords: code status, do-not-resuscitate order (DNR)

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders reflect an important means of respecting patient autonomy while minimizing the risk of nonbeneficial interventions. We sought to clarify trends and differences in rates of DNR orders for patients hospitalized with heart failure.We used statewide data from California's Healthcare Cost and Utilization dataset (2007-2010) to determine trends in DNR orders within 24 hours of admission for patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of heart failure.Among 347,541 hospitalizations for heart failure, the rate of DNR order within 24 hours increased from 10.4% in 2007 to 11.3% in 2010 (P.0001). After adjustment, DNR status correlated with older age, female gender, white race, frequent comorbidities (Charlson Score), and residence in higher income area (P .0001). DNR use was more likely in hospitals with public or nonprofit financing or medical school affiliation, but not being a member of the Council on Teaching Hospitals (all P .001).DNR order use among inpatients with heart failure is low but increasing slowly and varies by patient demographics and hospital characteristics.

Objective: Hospital physicians in Sweden most often decide do-not-resuscitate orders (DNR) without collaboration. Systematic pre-arrest indicators of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) do not exist. Therefore, new, and for the first time, national ethical guidelines on CPR have recently been published in Sweden. We aimed primarily to investigate if doctors and nurses knew about the guidelines and thereafter to gauge their attitudes concerning DNR. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was conducted of 48 doctors and 45 nurses (n=93) at surgical, medical and geriatric clinics at Orebro University Hospital, Sweden. A response rate of 62% was achieved. The questionnaire contained 17 questions; four about background information and 13 questions about procedures concerning DNR-orders where responses "yes, always", "normally", "seldom", "no, never" and "don't know" were most often available. Respondents were also invited to leave explanatory remarks. Results: Eighty percent of doctors knew about the new ethical guidelines, in contrast to 42% of nurses. Twenty-seven percent of doctors discussed with patients DNR-orders "normally", though 31% did it "seldom". Whereas nurses did this either "seldom" (40%) or "never" (58%). Ninety-one percent of nurses were in favour of patient involvement in decision-making concerning DNR-orders. Conclusion: While a moderate level of knowledge of the ethical guidelines existed, especially in doctors, the present study highlights a possible discrepancy between the awareness of the guidelines with the prevailing hospital praxis and the general attitudes of respondents. The study questions to what extent the guidelines are in fact implemented. Greater involvement of nurses, other paramedic staff and patients may lead to improve in-hospital patient care. Further descriptive and qualitative studies would be useful to explore these issues.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes measures of risk‐adjusted hospital mortality rates that are meant to guide consumers and to contribute to Value‐Based Payment (VBP) quality ratings used to redistribute up to $2 billion in Medicare payments annually. A hospital’s actual to expected (A/E) mortality ratio accounts for 25% of its VPB rating. Current risk adjustment for mortality rates includes previously coded comorbidities and complications (CCs) but does not include indicators of higher mortality risk such as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders present on admission (POA). We examined whether hospital mortality ratings could be improved by allowing DNR orders that are POA to identify a high‐risk group of patients among the 3 CMS mortality cohorts: acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia (PN). STUDY DESIGN: We created a risk‐adjusted ranking of hospitals with and without admissions that had a DNR code POA using the All‐Patient Refined Diagnosis Risk Group Risk of Mortality (APR DRG RoM) at admission for the VBP cohorts. We computed the ratio of deaths to admissions for each DRG and ROM level for the 3 VBP cohorts as well as for all hospital admissions for the year. These ratios provided an expected rate of mortality for every admission through indirect rate standardization. For the 3 mortality rate cohorts, we calculated independent A/E mortality ratios for each hospital using existing CMS cohort definitions. We then repeated the calculation excluding admissions where DNR was reported as POA. We ranked the hospitals by A/E mortality rates and examined the change in decile ranks with and without DNR POA cases. POPULATION STUDIED: We used data for calendar year 2016 (CY2016) from the CMS Fee‐for‐Service (FFS) claims file for diagnosis codes and DNR status and used the Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) to identify all deaths within 30 days of hospital admission. Among a total hospitalized population of 8.21 million with a death rate of 8.2%, there were 1.032 million admissions from the 3 VBP cohorts, of whom 14.2% had a DNR order POA and 11.3% died. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Unsurprisingly, the presence of a DNR order POA was associated with a much higher risk of 30‐day mortality. Overall, death rate for the mortality cohorts with DNR POA was 29.7%, compared to 8.2% without. For the entire hospitalized population, death rate was 30.3% with a DNR order POA, and 5.8% without. With the removal of DNR POA patients, hospital A/E mortality rankings changed substantially. 70% of hospitals moved up or down by at least one decile, and 34% moved up or down by 2 or more deciles. CONCLUSIONS: The DNR POA order identifies patients at higher risk of death and can thereby alter VBP hospital mortality rate rankings and the resulting payment redistributions. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: If the purpose of scrutinizing mortality rates is to identify preventable deaths, then continuing to include patients whose goals of care include DNR status can distort the risk‐adjustment process. The CMS mortality model should include adjustments for patients with DNR POA orders or remove them from the analysis entirely.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the etiology and discharge outcome of non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in young adults admitted to a comprehensive stroke center. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients with a discharge diagnosis of non-traumatic ICH admitted from 7/1/2011 to 6/30/2016. Data was collected on demographics, clinical history, ICH score, hemorrhage location, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, likely etiology, and discharge disposition. Categorical data was reported as percentage. Chi-squared test was performed to evaluate association of location of ICH, etiology of ICH, and ICH score with the discharge outcome. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients met the study criteria, with mean age 35.4 ± 6.4 years including 26 (41%) women and 40 (64%) whites. Headache (65%) and change in mental status (48%) were the most common presenting symptoms. Hemorrhage was most commonly seen in the deep structures in 29 (46%) patients followed by lobar ICH in 14 (22%) patients. The most common etiology of ICH was hypertension in 23 (37%) patients, followed by vascular abnormalities in 18 (29%) patients. Forty-two (67%) had good outcome defined as discharge to home (n=25) or acute inpatient rehabilitation (n=17). Twenty-one (33%) patients had bad outcome with discharge to skilled nursing facility (n=6), hospice (n=1) or died in the hospital (n=14). Hospital DNR orders were noted in 11 (18%) patients. Higher ICH score (p

Aim: Do not resuscitate (DNR) is an order in medical practice for the patients who are suffering from a grave medical condition, and their life is in danger to end. DNR decision-making varies from one hospital to another. This study is aimed to assess the knowledge of the patients' relatives about DNR concept and their opinion about the DNR decision-making. Materials and Methods: This was a nonintervention cross-sectional study conducted, during 2016, among 420 patients' relatives in the Emergency Department at King Abdul-Aziz University Hospital in KSA. Data were collected by interviewing the participants. Data were further analyzed using SPSS software. The Chi-square test was used to determine the associations. Results: Variation in responses related to the DNR concept was observed. Around 44% of participants thought that DNR involved maximum intervention in the hospital, including intensive care. Further, the majority (55.2%) of the participants were assured about the quality of the services the patient would receive. Furthermore, 51% of the participants believed that ultimately, it should always be the doctor who decides on a DNR decision. Meanwhile, 36.4% of the relatives opined that the family members should be involved in the discussion regarding the DNR order. Conclusion: We observed a gap in the understanding of the concept and decision-making of DNR-order among the participants. Health-care providers should provide a greater explanation about DNR orders to the families of the patients to avoid any misunderstandings, and also support them psychologically to avoid any stress they might encounter in such situations.

Objectives To explore the effect of the presence and timing of a do‐not‐resuscitate (DNR) order on short‐term clinical outcomes, including mortality. Design Retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching to enable direct comparison of DNR and no‐DNR groups. Setting Large, academic tertiary‐care center. Participants Hospitalized medical patients aged 65 and older. Measurements Primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included discharge disposition, length of stay, 30‐day readmission, restraints, bladder catheters, and bedrest order. Results Before propensity score matching, the DNR group (n=1,347) was significantly older (85.8 vs 79.6, p

Background: Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders are put in place where cardiopulmonary resuscitation is inappropriate. However, it is unclear who should be involved in discussions and decisions around DNR orders. Aim: The aim was to determine the views of oncology and palliative care doctors and nurses on DNR orders. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted on 146 doctors and nurses in oncology and palliative care working within a tertiary specialist cancer center in Singapore. Results: Perceived care differences as a result of DNR determinations led to 50.7% of respondents reporting concerns that a DNR order would mean that the patient received a substandard level of care. On the matter of DNR discussions, majority thought that patients (78.8%) and the next of kin (78.1%) should be involved though with whom the ultimate decision lay differed. There was also a wide range of views on the most appropriate time to have a DNR discussion. Conclusions: From the viewpoint of oncology and palliative care healthcare professionals, patients should be involved at least in discussing if not in the determination of DNR orders, challenging the norm of familial determination in the Asian context. The varied responses highlight the complexity of decision making on issues relating to the end of life. Thus, it is important to take into account the innumerable bio-psychosocial, practical, and ethical factors that are involved within such deliberations.