Literature DB >> 19482974

Code status discussions and goals of care among hospitalised adults.

L C Kaldjian1, Z D Erekson, T H Haberle, A E Curtis, L A Shinkunas, K T Cannon, V L Forman-Hoffman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Code status discussions may fail to address patients' treatment-related goals and their knowledge of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study aimed to investigate patients' resuscitation preferences, knowledge of CPR and goals of care. Design, setting, patients and measurements: 135 adults were interviewed within 48 h of admission to a general medical service in an academic medical centre, querying code status preferences, knowledge about CPR and its outcome probabilities and goals of care. Medical records were reviewed for clinical information and code status documentation.
RESULTS: 41 (30.4%) patients had discussed CPR with their doctor, 116 (85.9%) patients preferred full code status and 11 (8.1%) patients expressed code status preferences different from the code status documented in their medical record. When queried about seven possible goals of care, patients affirmed an average of 4.9 goals; their single most important goals were broadly distributed, ranging from being cured (n = 36; 26.7%) to being comfortable (n = 8; 5.9%). Patients' mean estimate of survival to discharge after CPR was 60.4%. Most patients believed it was helpful to discuss goals of care (n = 95; 70.4%) and the chances of surviving in hospital CPR (n = 112; 83.0%). Some patients expressed a desire to change their code status after receiving information about survival following in hospital CPR (n = 11; 8.1%) or after discussing goals of care (n = 2; 1.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Doctors need to address patients' knowledge about CPR and take steps to avoid discrepancies between treatment orders and patients' preferences. Addressing CPR outcome probabilities and goals of care during code status discussions may improve patients' knowledge and influence their preferences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19482974     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.027854

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  18 in total

1.  Documentation quality of inpatient code status discussions.

Authors:  Andrew Thurston; Diane B Wayne; Joseph Feinglass; Rashmi K Sharma
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Understanding Goals of Care Statements and Preferences among Patients and Their Surrogates in the Medical ICU.

Authors:  Debra S Brandt; Laura A Shinkunas; Thomas G Gehlbach; Lauris C Kaldjian
Journal:  J Hosp Palliat Nurs       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.918

3.  Exploration of Patients' Spiritual/Religious Beliefs and Resuscitation Decisions.

Authors:  Elizabeth Freitas; Guangxiang Zhang
Journal:  Hawaii J Health Soc Welf       Date:  2019-07

4.  Hospice eligibility in patients who died in a tertiary care center.

Authors:  Katherine Freund; Michelle T Weckmann; David J Casarett; Kristi Swanson; Mary Kay Brooks; Ann Broderick
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.960

5.  Code status orders and goals of care in the medical ICU.

Authors:  Thomas G Gehlbach; Laura A Shinkunas; Valerie L Forman-Hoffman; Karl W Thomas; Gregory A Schmidt; Lauris C Kaldjian
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Dancing around death: hospitalist-patient communication about serious illness.

Authors:  Wendy G Anderson; Susan Kools; Audrey Lyndon
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2012-10-03

7.  Unpacking resident-led code status discussions: results from a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Rashmi K Sharma; Nelia Jain; Namrata Peswani; Eytan Szmuilowicz; Diane B Wayne; Kenzie A Cameron
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Choice architecture in code status discussions with terminally ill patients and their families.

Authors:  George L Anesi; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Inpatient palliative care consultation: describing patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Pushkar Chand; Teralyn Gabriel; Cathy L Wallace; Craig M Nelson
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

10.  Care Consistency With Documented Care Preferences: Methodologic Considerations for Implementing the "Measuring What Matters" Quality Indicator.

Authors:  Kathleen T Unroe; Susan E Hickman; Alexia M Torke
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 3.612

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.