Study Objective:To determine the success rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the elderly and to define characteristics of elderly patients for whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation is ef...

Outcomes of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Elderly

We studied the extent to which 82 private physicians and 75 house officers talked with hospitalized patients or their families (or both) about whether they would desire cardiopulmonary resuscitation if it became necessary. During the period of study (1981), 154 patients were resuscitated at our university teaching hospital. In 68 per cent of the cases, physicians had formed an opinion about the patient's attitude toward cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, only 30 (19 per cent) of the patients had discussed resuscitation before the arrest with either their private physician or a house officer (or both); 51 (33 per cent) of the families were consulted. These percentages did not differ significantly according to the underlying disease, whether the patient was on the general wards or in the intensive-care unit, the physician's estimate of the probability of arrest, or the physician's level of training. Even the 151 physicians who believed that patients should participate in decisions about resusc...

Choices about cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. When do physicians talk with patients

We studied compliance with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders at a university hospital where a DNR protocol has existed since 1979. Documentation of DNR status in patient progress notes and chart orders increased through 1983. During a 12-month period (March 1983 through April 1984), we studied in detail the medical records of 521 patients who had a cardiopulmonary arrest in the hospital. Seventy-five percent (389 of 521) of these patients were designated DNR. Patients who were designated DNR were significantly more likely to be older, to have malignancy or an abnormal mental status, and to be less likely to have acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than patients in whom resuscitation was attempted. Eighty-six percent of families, but only 22% of patients, were involved in the decision to designate a patient DNR. The decision to designate a patient DNR occurred late in the course of a patient's illness, often when the patient was in coma. For 28% of patients, some form of medical care was withdrawn or withheld after they were designated DNR. These data suggest that use of the DNR protocol requires changes if patients are to participate in the decision not to undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Do-not-resuscitate orders for critically ill patients in the hospital. How are they used and what is their impact?

The effect of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders on physicians' decisions to provide life-prolonging treatments other than cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for patients near the end of life was explored using a cross-sectional mailed survey. Each survey presented three patient scenarios followed by 10 treatment decisions. Participants were residents and attending physicians who were randomly assigned surveys in which all patient scenarios included or did not include a DNR order. Response to three case scenarios when a DNR order was present or absent were measured. Response from 241 of 463 physicians (52%) was received. Physicians agreed or strongly agreed to initiate fewer interventions when a DNR order was present versus absent (4.2 vs 5.0 (P =.008) in the first scenario; 6.5 vs 7.1 (P =.004) in the second scenario; and 5.7 vs 6.2 (P =.037) in the third scenario). In all three scenarios, patients with DNR orders were significantly less likely to be transferred to an intensive care unit, to be intubated, or to receive CPR. In some scenarios, the presence of a DNR order was associated with a decreased willingness to draw blood cultures (91% vs 98%, P =.038), central line placement (68% vs 80%, P =.030), or blood transfusion (75% vs 87%, P =.015). The presence of a DNR order may affect physicians' willingness to order a variety of treatments not related to CPR. Patients with DNR orders may choose to forgo other life-prolonging treatments, but physicians should elicit additional information about patients' treatment goals to inform these decisions.

The effect of do-not-resuscitate orders on physician decision-making.

Background In 1976, the first hospital policies on orders not to resuscitate were published in the medical literature. Since that time, the concept has continued to evolve and evoke much debate. Indeed, few initials in medicine today evoke as much symbolism or controversy as the Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order. Objective To review the development, implementation, and present standing of the DNR order. Design Review article. Main Results The DNR order concept brought an open decision-making framework to the resuscitation decision and did much to put appropriate restraint on the universal application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation for the dying patient. Yet, even today, many of the early concerns remain. Conclusions After 25 yrs of DNR orders, it remains reasonable to presume consent and attempt resuscitation for people who suffer an unexpected cardiopulmonary arrest or for whom resuscitation may have physiologic effect and for whom no information is available at the time as to their wishes (or those of their surrogate). However, it is not reasonable to continue to rely on such a presumption without promptly and actively seeking to clarify the patient’s (or surrogate’s) wishes. The DNR order, then, remains an inducement to seek the informed patient’s directive.

Do-not-resuscitate order after 25 years

Medical opinions on the inappropriateness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation of certain patients are now openly discussed, as acknowledged by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its recent Quinlan decisi...

Gerald Gillerman

Papers

Orders Not to Resuscitate