In pursuit of an artful death: discussion of resuscitation status on an inpatient radiation oncology service.

GOALS OF WORK: Consensus has emerged among health practitioners, legal experts, clinical ethicists and the public that end-of-life decisions should be the shared responsibility of physicians and patients. In discussion of withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cancer patients, however, opinion remains divided. We performed a quality assurance investigation on the use of the 'do-not-resuscitate' (DNR) order on an inpatient radiation oncology service to determine how often DNR orders are accompanied by a description of informed consent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of patients admitted 1 July to 31 December 2002 were identified and reviewed to determine the presence or absence of a DNR order. Circumstances surrounding the order, including evidence of informed consent, were determined. MAIN
RESULTS: The study population comprised 96 patients admitted 109 times. The median age was 64 years, and in 56.0% of admissions, the patient was female. In 26.8%, the patient had lung cancer. The intent of admission was curative in 53.2%, and palliative in 44.0%. DNR was recorded for 30.2% of patients, and there was evidence of informed consent in 41.4%. In 89.7% admission was with palliative intent. Nine patients (9.4%) experienced cardiac arrest; all were DNR at the time of their event.
CONCLUSIONS: While almost one-third of the patients on this inpatient radiation oncology service had documented DNR status, informed consent appeared to have been obtained in fewer than half. Patient involvement in resuscitative decisions should be an ethical obligation. Performed well, this may also allow for exploration of patients' needs at the end of life, to allow the pursuit of what Nuland terms an 'artful death'.