Literature DB >> 11888982

Do specialists differ on do-not-resuscitate decisions?

William F Kelly1, Arn H Eliasson, Derek J Stocker, Oleh W Hnatiuk.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: Opinions regarding do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions differ between individual physicians. We attempted to determine whether the strength of DNR recommendations varies with medical specialty and experience.
DESIGN: Written survey. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians from the pulmonary/critical-care medicine (PCCM), cardiology, internal medicine, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, and infectious disease services as well as the Department of Medicine house staff at our tertiary-care referral center participated in the study.
INTERVENTIONS: Physicians were asked confidentially to quantify the strength of their opinions on discussing and recommending DNR orders for each of 20 vignettes made from the summaries of actual cases. Reasons for their opinions and demographic data also were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND
RESULTS: One hundred fifteen of 155 physicians (74%) responded. PCCM physicians (mean [+/- SD] DNR score, 157 +/- 22) more strongly recommended DNR orders than cardiologists (mean DNR score, 122 +/- 32; p = 0.006), house staff (mean DNR score, 132 +/- 24; p = 0.014), and general internists (mean DNR score, 129 +/- 30; p = 0.043). PCCM physicians also trended toward recommending DNR orders for more of the 20 patients described in the vignettes compared to cardiologists (mean DNR number, 16.5 +/- 3.0 vs 11.9 +/- 5.8, respectively; p = 0.066). There were no differences between PCCM physicians and hematology/oncology, infectious disease, and gastroenterology specialists. Among the house staff, the likelihood of recommending a DNR order correlated significantly with increasing years of experience (r = 0.45; p = 0.002). The opposite trend was present in the specialty staff groups. No significant differences in opinion by gender, religion, or personal experiences were found.
CONCLUSIONS: The strength of DNR order recommendations varies with medicine specialty and years of training and experience. An awareness of these differences and the determination of the reasons behind them may help to target educational interventions and to ensure effective collaboration with colleagues and communication with patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11888982     DOI: 10.1378/chest.121.3.957

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chest        ISSN: 0012-3692            Impact factor:   9.410


  20 in total

1.  Prognostic factors in critically ill patients suffering from secondary peritonitis: a retrospective, observational, survival time analysis.

Authors:  Christian P Schneider; Carol Seyboth; Markus Vilsmaier; Helmut Küchenhoff; Benjamin Hofner; Karl-Walter Jauch; Wolfgang H Hartl
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Increased nonbeneficial care in patients spending their birthday in the ICU.

Authors:  Elie Azoulay; Maité Garrouste; Dany Goldgran-Toledano; Christophe Adrie; Adeline Max; Aurélien Vesin; Adrien Francais; Jean-Ralph Zahar; Yves Cohen; Bernard Allaouchiche; Benoît Schlemmer; Jean-François Timsit
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  End-of-life practices in 282 intensive care units: data from the SAPS 3 database.

Authors:  Elie Azoulay; Barbara Metnitz; Charles L Sprung; Jean-François Timsit; François Lemaire; Peter Bauer; Benoît Schlemmer; Rui Moreno; Philipp Metnitz
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Hospital staff attributions of the causes of physician variation in end-of-life treatment intensity.

Authors:  M R Larochelle; K L Rodriguez; R M Arnold; A E Barnato
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 4.762

5.  Using simulation to isolate physician variation in intensive care unit admission decision making for critically ill elders with end-stage cancer: a pilot feasibility study.

Authors:  Amber E Barnato; Heather E Hsu; Cindy L Bryce; Judith R Lave; Lillian L Emlet; Derek C Angus; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Secular trends in severe renal failure associated with the use of new antimicrobial agents in critically ill surgical patients.

Authors:  M E Eichhorn; H Wolf; H Küchenhoff; M Joka; K-W Jauch; W H Hartl
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.267

7.  Comparability of self rated health: cross sectional multi-country survey using anchoring vignettes.

Authors:  Joshua A Salomon; Ajay Tandon; Christopher J L Murray
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-23

8.  Care of terminally-ill patients: an opinion survey among critical care healthcare providers in the Middle East.

Authors:  M ur Rahman; S Abuhasna; F M Abu-Zidan
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 0.927

9.  The Natural History of Changes in Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatments and Implications for Inpatient Mortality in Younger and Older Hospitalized Adults.

Authors:  Yan S Kim; Gabriel J Escobar; Scott D Halpern; John D Greene; Patricia Kipnis; Vincent Liu
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy in ICU patients independently predict hospital death.

Authors:  Elie Azoulay; Frédéric Pochard; Maité Garrouste-Orgeas; Delphine Moreau; Laurent Montesino; Christophe Adrie; Arnaud de Lassence; Yves Cohen; Jean-François Timsit
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2003-10-07       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.