OBJECTIVES: To examine the frequency of surrogate decisions for in-hospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and the timing of DNR order entry for surrogate decisions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large, urban, public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults aged 65 and older over a 3-year period (1/1/2004-12/31/2006) with a DNR order during their hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS: Electronic chart review provided data on frequency of surrogate decisions, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, and timing of DNR orders. RESULTS: Of 668 patients, the ordering physician indicated that the DNR decision was made with the patient in 191 cases (28.9%), the surrogate in 389 (58.2%), and both in 88 (13.2%). Patients who required a surrogate were more likely to be in the intensive care unit (62.2% vs 39.8%, P<.001) but did not differ according to demographic characteristics. By hospital Day 3, 77.6% of patient decisions, 61.9% of surrogate decisions, and 58.0% of shared decisions had been made. In multivariable models, the number of days from admission to DNR order was higher for surrogate (odds ratio (OR)=1.97, P<.001) and shared decisions (OR=1.48, P=.009) than for patient decisions. The adjusted hazard ratio for hospital death was higher for patients with surrogate than patient decisions (2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.56-4.36). Patients whose DNR orders were written on Day 6 or later were twice as likely to die in the hospital (OR=2.20, 95% CI=1.45-3.36) than patients with earlier DNR orders. CONCLUSION: For patients who have a DNR order entered during their hospital stay, order entry occurs later when a surrogate is involved. Surrogate decision-making may take longer because of the greater ethical, emotional, or communication complexity of making decisions with surrogates than with patients.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the frequency of surrogate decisions for in-hospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and the timing of DNR order entry for surrogate decisions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large, urban, public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults aged 65 and older over a 3-year period (1/1/2004-12/31/2006) with a DNR order during their hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS: Electronic chart review provided data on frequency of surrogate decisions, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, and timing of DNR orders. RESULTS: Of 668 patients, the ordering physician indicated that the DNR decision was made with the patient in 191 cases (28.9%), the surrogate in 389 (58.2%), and both in 88 (13.2%). Patients who required a surrogate were more likely to be in the intensive care unit (62.2% vs 39.8%, P<.001) but did not differ according to demographic characteristics. By hospital Day 3, 77.6% of patient decisions, 61.9% of surrogate decisions, and 58.0% of shared decisions had been made. In multivariable models, the number of days from admission to DNR order was higher for surrogate (odds ratio (OR)=1.97, P<.001) and shared decisions (OR=1.48, P=.009) than for patient decisions. The adjusted hazard ratio for hospital death was higher for patients with surrogate than patient decisions (2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.56-4.36). Patients whose DNR orders were written on Day 6 or later were twice as likely to die in the hospital (OR=2.20, 95% CI=1.45-3.36) than patients with earlier DNR orders. CONCLUSION: For patients who have a DNR order entered during their hospital stay, order entry occurs later when a surrogate is involved. Surrogate decision-making may take longer because of the greater ethical, emotional, or communication complexity of making decisions with surrogates than with patients.
Authors: R Baker; A W Wu; J M Teno; B Kreling; A M Damiano; H R Rubin; M J Roach; N S Wenger; R S Phillips; N A Desbiens; A F Connors; W Knaus; J Lynn Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Vanessa Raymont; William Bingley; Alec Buchanan; Anthony S David; Peter Hayward; Simon Wessely; Matthew Hotopf Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Oct 16-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrew D Auerbach; Rebecca Katz; Steven Z Pantilat; Rachelle Bernacki; Jeffrey Schnipper; Peter Kaboli; Tosha Wetterneck; David Gonzales; Vineet Arora; James Zhang; David Meltzer Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Alexia M Torke; Mark Siegler; Anna Abalos; Rachael M Moloney; G Caleb Alexander Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tomer T Levin; Yuelin Li; Joseph S Weiner; Frank Lewis; Abraham Bartell; Jessica Piercy; David W Kissane Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2008-12
Authors: Jennifer L Carnahan; Lev Inger; Robert S Young; James E Slaven; Alexia M Torke Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Alexia M Torke; Greg A Sachs; Paul R Helft; Kianna Montz; Siu L Hui; James E Slaven; Christopher M Callahan Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Alexia M Torke; Lucia D Wocial; Shelley A Johns; Greg A Sachs; Christopher M Callahan; Gabriel T Bosslet; James E Slaven; Susan M Perkins; Susan E Hickman; Kianna Montz; Emily S Burke Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Alexia M Torke; Patrick Monahan; Christopher M Callahan; Paul R Helft; Greg A Sachs; Lucia D Wocial; James E Slaven; Kianna Montz; Lev Inger; Emily S Burke Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Alexia M Torke; Sandra Petronio; Christianna E Purnell; Greg A Sachs; Paul R Helft; Christopher M Callahan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 5.562