OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders, to define factors associated with CPR/DNAR orders and to explore how physicians make and document these decisions. METHODS: We prospectively reviewed CPR/DNAR forms of 1,446 patients admitted to the General Internal Medicine Department of the Geneva University Hospitals, a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Switzerland. We additionally administered a face-to-face survey to residents in charge of 206 patients including DNAR and CPR orders, with or without patient inclusion. RESULTS: 21.2% of the patients had a DNAR order, 61.7% a CPR order and 17.1% had neither. The two main factors associated with DNAR orders were a worse prognosis and/or a worse quality of life. Others factors were an older age, cancer and psychiatric diagnoses, and the absence of decision-making capacity. Residents gave four major justifications for DNAR orders: important comorbid conditions (34%), the patients' or their family's resuscitation preferences (18%), the patients' age (14.2%), and the absence of decision-making capacity (8%). Residents who wrote DNAR orders were more experienced. In many of the DNAR or CPR forms (19.8 and 16%, respectively), the order was written using a variety of formulations. For 24% of the residents, the distinction between the resuscitation order and the care objective was not clear. 38% of the residents found the resuscitation form useful. CONCLUSION: Patients' prognosis and quality of life were the two main independent factors associated with CPR/DNAR orders. However, in the majority of cases, residents evaluated prognosis only intuitively, and quality of life without involving the patients. The distinction between CPR/DNAR orders and the care objectives was not always clear. Specific training regarding CPR/DNAR orders is necessary to improve the CPR/DNAR decision process used by physicians.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders, to define factors associated with CPR/DNAR orders and to explore how physicians make and document these decisions. METHODS: We prospectively reviewed CPR/DNAR forms of 1,446 patients admitted to the General Internal Medicine Department of the Geneva University Hospitals, a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Switzerland. We additionally administered a face-to-face survey to residents in charge of 206 patients including DNAR and CPR orders, with or without patient inclusion. RESULTS: 21.2% of the patients had a DNAR order, 61.7% a CPR order and 17.1% had neither. The two main factors associated with DNAR orders were a worse prognosis and/or a worse quality of life. Others factors were an older age, cancer and psychiatric diagnoses, and the absence of decision-making capacity. Residents gave four major justifications for DNAR orders: important comorbid conditions (34%), the patients' or their family's resuscitation preferences (18%), the patients' age (14.2%), and the absence of decision-making capacity (8%). Residents who wrote DNAR orders were more experienced. In many of the DNAR or CPR forms (19.8 and 16%, respectively), the order was written using a variety of formulations. For 24% of the residents, the distinction between the resuscitation order and the care objective was not clear. 38% of the residents found the resuscitation form useful. CONCLUSION:Patients' prognosis and quality of life were the two main independent factors associated with CPR/DNAR orders. However, in the majority of cases, residents evaluated prognosis only intuitively, and quality of life without involving the patients. The distinction between CPR/DNAR orders and the care objectives was not always clear. Specific training regarding CPR/DNAR orders is necessary to improve the CPR/DNAR decision process used by physicians.
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Kelsey Lau-Min; Ryan D Nipp; Joseph A Greer; Lara N Traeger; Samantha M Moran; Sara M D'Arpino; Ephraim P Hochberg; Vicki A Jackson; Barbara J Cashavelly; Holly S Martinson; David P Ryan; Jennifer S Temel Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nicholas Waldron; Claire E Johnson; Peter Saul; Heidi Waldron; Jeffrey C Chong; Anne-Marie Hill; Barbara Hayes Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Eva Piscator; Therese Djärv; Katarina Rakovic; Emil Boström; Sune Forsberg; Martin J Holzmann; Johan Herlitz; Katarina Göransson Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-04-29