INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to assess perioperative reevaluation of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders by practicing anesthesiologists. METHODS: As part of an Anesthesia Crisis Resource Management course, an anesthesiologist interviewed a patient-actor with prostate cancer and bone metastases scheduled for a central venous catheter placement. The chart included a properly documented DNR order and the patient-actor's scripted responses emphasized that he would accept resuscitative efforts only "if the adverse clinical events were believed to be both temporary and reversible." Later, the subject assumed responsibility for the anesthesia in which the patient subsequently developed an iatrogenically induced pneumothorax, became apneic, and had a cardiovascular arrest requiring a prolonged resuscitation. Responses to these events and a following survey were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of the subjects (17/30) addressed resuscitation during the preoperative interview; 27% (8/30) decided to suspend the DNR order and 30% (9/30) instituted a goal-directed or procedure-directed DNR order. Ninety percent (27/30) of the groups chose to continue resuscitative efforts until the simulation ended. Of the surveyed participants, over 90% would place a chest tube, intubate the trachea, do chest compressions, and perform cardiac defibrillation. Common reasons for intervening were reversibility, iatrogenicity, and that intervention would be consistent with the patient's goals. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequacies in perioperative reevaluation of DNR orders existed at all stages. Simulation of perioperative DNR orders is a useful way to elicit anesthesiologist's actions in the heat of the moment, which may bring us closer to understanding the actions of anesthesiologists during clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to assess perioperative reevaluation of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders by practicing anesthesiologists. METHODS: As part of an Anesthesia Crisis Resource Management course, an anesthesiologist interviewed a patient-actor with prostate cancer and bone metastases scheduled for a central venous catheter placement. The chart included a properly documented DNR order and the patient-actor's scripted responses emphasized that he would accept resuscitative efforts only "if the adverse clinical events were believed to be both temporary and reversible." Later, the subject assumed responsibility for the anesthesia in which the patient subsequently developed an iatrogenically induced pneumothorax, became apneic, and had a cardiovascular arrest requiring a prolonged resuscitation. Responses to these events and a following survey were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of the subjects (17/30) addressed resuscitation during the preoperative interview; 27% (8/30) decided to suspend the DNR order and 30% (9/30) instituted a goal-directed or procedure-directed DNR order. Ninety percent (27/30) of the groups chose to continue resuscitative efforts until the simulation ended. Of the surveyed participants, over 90% would place a chest tube, intubate the trachea, do chest compressions, and perform cardiac defibrillation. Common reasons for intervening were reversibility, iatrogenicity, and that intervention would be consistent with the patient's goals. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequacies in perioperative reevaluation of DNR orders existed at all stages. Simulation of perioperative DNR orders is a useful way to elicit anesthesiologist's actions in the heat of the moment, which may bring us closer to understanding the actions of anesthesiologists during clinical practice.
Authors: Satya Krishna Ramachandran; Jill Mhyre; Sachin Kheterpal; Robert E Christensen; Kristen Tallman; Michelle Morris; Paul S Chan Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Michael Kushelev; Lori D Meyers; Marilly Palettas; Alec Lawrence; Tristan E Weaver; John C Coffman; Kenneth R Moran; Jonathan A Lipps Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 1.817