Allow-Natural-Death (AND) Orders: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations

Does Reframing Do-Not-Resuscitate to Beneficial Care Only Increase Acceptance of No-CPR Orders?

BACKGROUND

The terminology of a do not resuscitate (DNR) order can be confusing and controversial for patients at the end of life. We examined whether changing the name to beneficial care only (BCO) would increase patient acceptance.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Would individuals be more willing to forgo full code (FC) status and accept a no-CPR order if the order title was BCO?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 599 adults residing in the United States, presenting participants with a hypothetical scenario of a terminal patient. One-half were given a choice between FC and DNR status, and one-half were given a choice between FC and BCO status. The 20-item survey included multiple-choice responses and 1 free-response question.

RESULTS

In our nationally representative survey of US participants who were 50% female and 26% non-White (99% response rate, 599 of 600), there was no difference in participant preference for BCO or DNR overall (P = .7616) and across participant sociodemographic characteristics. Although themes of participant reasons for choosing against CPR were similar for both DNR and BCO preferences, including harms imposed by CPR, lack of quality of life, trust in the medical team, and avoidance of suffering, 2 additional themes appeared only for BCO responses, including CPR would be useless and the patient would continue to receive beneficial care.

INTERPRETATION

We found no statistically significant difference in preference between BCO and DNR orders for a terminally ill patient. These findings suggest changing the terminology of DNR to BCO may not lead to changes in decisions to forgo CPR. The additional themes identified with the use of BCO support the concept that BCO terminology conveys to the recipient that all beneficial care will continue to be provided to the patient.

Prehospital Providers' Perspectives about Online Medical Direction in Emergency End-of-Life Decision-Making

Background: End-of-life treatment decisions present special challenges for prehospital emergency providers. Paramedics regularly make value-laden choices that transcend technical judgment and professional skill, affecting the type of care, how and to whom it is provided. Changes in prehospital emergency care over the last decade have created new moral challenges for prehospital emergency providers; these changes have also accentuated the need for paramedics to make rapid and reasoned ethical judgments. Objective: The purpose of the study was to explore the decision-making process that occurs when prehospital emergency teams respond to an end-of-life call with a focus on how state authorized documents such as a Non-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (NHDNR) or Medical/Physician's Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST/POLST) or lack thereof inform decision-making. This paper presents the specific circumstances that informed the need for intervention from Online Medical Direction (OLMD) framed in the perspectives and words of the prehospital providers seeking that assistance. Methods: This study involved in-depth in-person interviews with 50 providers to elicit participants' experiences in their own words using a semi-structured interview instrument. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with permission. Results: Five themes emerged that illuminated how and when OLMD was involved in emergency end-of-life decisions: Termination of Resuscitation (TOR); Family Revoked DNR; Missing Documents; No Documents and No CPR; and Unusual Situations. Participants illustrated how the decision to terminate efforts was best-supported when it was made by collaboration between the on-scene provider and OLMD. Participants described ethical dilemmas when families asked them to initiate CPR in the presence of DNR orders and cognitive dissonance when CPR has been initiated but a valid DNR/MOLST is subsequently located. Conclusions: The study findings demonstrate the invaluable contribution of OLMD for complex end-of-life care decisions by prehospital providers, especially when there are difficult legal, ethical, and logistical questions. OLMD provides far more than technical support.

The effects of the interventions on the DNR designation among cancer patients: A systematic review

Objective:

The aims of this systematic review were to examine the effects of the overall and the different types of the interventions on the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) designation and the time between DNR and death among cancer patients.

Method:

Data were searched from the databases of PubMed, CINAHL, EMbase, Medline, and Cochrane Library through 2 November 2017. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were (1) randomized control trails, quasi-experimental study, and retrospective observational studies and (2) used outcome indicators of DNR designation rates. The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool was used to assess the overall quality of the included studies.

Result:

The 14 studies with a total of 7,180 participants were included in this review. There were 78.6% (11 of 14) studies that indicated that the interventions could improve the DNR designation rates. Three types of DNR interventions were identified in this review: palliative care unit service, palliative consultation services, and patient-physician communication program. The significant increases of the time between DNR designation and death only occurred in a patient-physician communication program.

Significance of results:

The palliative care unit service provided a continuing care model to reduce unnecessary utilization of healthcare service. The palliative consultation service is a new care model to meet the needs of cancer patients in non-palliative care unit. The share decision-making communication program and physician's compassion attitudes facilitate to make DNR decision early. The individualized DNR program needs to be developed according to the needs of cancer patients.

Why do older people refuse resuscitation? A qualitative study examining retirement village residents' resuscitation decisions

BACKGROUND

There is a dearth of qualitative research on resuscitation preferences of older New Zealanders. The aim of this study was to investigate the resuscitation preferences of older New Zealanders in a retirement village or residential care setting, as well as the reasons for these preferences.

METHODS

This study had 37 participants from two retirement villages in Auckland, New Zealand. Participants were interviewed about a hypothetical case vignette about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and then they completed a semi-structured interview. Interviews were subsequently transcribed and analyzed by two independent researchers using thematic qualitative methodology.

RESULTS

The majority of the participants (n = 25, 67.6%) decided against resuscitation, 10 (27.0%) wanted resuscitation, and 2 (5.4%) were ambivalent about their resuscitation preferences. Three main themes emerged during the data analysis regarding participants' reasons for deciding against resuscitation: (i) the wish for a natural death; (ii) advanced age; and (iii) a realistic awareness about the consequences of resuscitation. Responses related to the third these had three subthemes: (i) reduced quality of life; (ii) loss of personal integrity and sense of existence; and (iii) concern that resuscitation could result in unnecessary costs or a burden on others. Among participants who preferred resuscitation, two main themes emerged regarding their reasons for wanting resuscitation: (i) the wish to prolong a good quality of life; and (ii) unrealistic expectations of resuscitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Older people in this study were able to make reasoned decisions about resuscitation based on balancing their subjective estimations of quality of life and the presumed consequences of resuscitation. It is important therefore to educate older adults about the potential outcomes of resuscitation and explore (and document) their reasoning when discussing resuscitation preferences so their wishes can be respected.

Influences of "do-not-resuscitate order" prohibition on CPR outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study is to determine factors affecting the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) ratios, neurological outcomes at discharge, the ratio of living patients discharged from the hospital and due to Do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) prohibition.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study conducted on patients of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed in emergency department (ED) and intensive care units between February 2010 and February 2012.

RESULTS

A total of 469 patients were evaluated, and 266 eligible patients who did not have DNAR orders were included in the study. Overall, 45.1% of the adult in-hospital cardiac arrest victims returned to spontaneous circulation, and 5.3% survived to hospital discharge. Of the patients who were discharged alive from the hospital, 33.3% were discharged in poor neurologic conditions of Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score 3 or 4. The ROSC ratio was reduced for the patients with malignancies compared to the patients with other preexisting conditions (OR: 12.783; 95% CI 2.967-55.072; p = 0.000). None of the patients with malignancies were discharged alive from the hospital. Only one patient with end-stage disease was discharged alive from hospital, and this patient's CPC score was 4.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

CPR has not increased the ROSC and alive discharge rates in patients with malignancy and end-state disease. DNAR order prohibition have been increased the futile CPR attempts. DNAR should be accepted as a human right that represents an honorable death option and whether a DNAR is order demanded should be specifically discussed with patients with malignancies and end-stage disease presenting to ED.

Clinician Perspectives on Challenges to Patient Centered Care at the End of Life

Discussions regarding patient preferences for resuscitation are often delayed and preferences may be neglected, leading to the receipt of unwanted medical care. To better understand barriers to the expression and realization of patients’ end of life wishes, a preventive ethics team in one Veterans Affairs Medical Center conducted a survey of physicians, nurses, social workers, and respiratory therapists. Surveys were analyzed through qualitative analysis, using sorting methodologies to identify themes. Analysis revealed barriers to patient wishes being identified and followed, including discomfort conducting end-of-life discussions, difficulty locating patients’ preferences in medical records, challenges with expiring do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, and confusion over terminology. Based on these findings, the preventive ethics team proposed new terminology for code status preferences, elimination of the local policy for expiration of DNR orders, and enhanced systems for storing and retrieving patients’ end-of-life preferences. Educational efforts were initiated to facilitate implementation of the proposed changes.

Attitudes of Chinese Oncology Physicians Toward Death with Dignity

BACKGROUND

Death with dignity (DWD) refers to the refusal of life-prolonging measures for terminally ill patients by "living wills" forms in advance. More and more oncology physicians are receiving DWD requests from advance cancer patients in mainland China.

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to investigate the attitudes of Chinese oncology physicians toward the legalization and implementation of DWD.

METHODS

A questionnaire investigating the understanding and attitudes toward DWD was administered to 257 oncology physicians from 11 hospitals in mainland China.

RESULTS

The effective response rate was 86.8% (223/257). The majority of oncology physicians (69.1%) had received DWD requests from patients. Half of the participants (52.5%) thought that the most important reason was the patients' unwillingness to maintain survival through machines. One-third of participants (33.0%) attributed the most important reason to suffering from painful symptoms. Most oncology physicians (78.9%) had knowledge about DWD. A fifth of respondents did not know the difference between DWD and euthanasia, and a few even considered DWD as euthanasia. The majority of oncology physicians supported the legalization (88.3%) and implementation (83.9%) of DWD.

CONCLUSIONS

Many Chinese oncology physicians have received advanced cancer patients' DWD requests and think that DWD should be legalized and implemented. Chinese health management departments should consider the demands of physicians and patients. It is important to inform physicians about the difference between DWD and euthanasia, as one-fifth of them were confused about it.