"Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation"-orders in ICCUs: a survey of attitudes and experiences of nurses in Norway

Knowledge and attitudes of physicians in Chile toward Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation orders: A cross-sectional nation-wide study

Objective

Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation orders originated in the early 1960s with the establishment of advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation. These orders aim to limit therapeutic efforts in cases where it may be futile. The decision not to resuscitate a patient is a process that involves a series of ethical, legal, and clinical considerations. Still, it also requires a process in which priority is given to the patients and their autonomy. The objective of this study was to describe the knowledge and attitudes of physicians working in Chile toward Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation orders.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted, in which a digital questionnaire was sent to physicians from different regions of Chile. Quantitative variables were analyzed using measures of central tendency and dispersion (e.g., median and interquartile range), while qualitative variables were evaluated using frequencies and percentages.

Results

Four hundred and thirty-one physicians completed the survey. 85.4% were familiar with the ethical and legal guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the rights and duties of the patient. 39.2% believed that patients should have the final decision Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation orders, especially if they themselves requested not to be resuscitated. 87.7% mentioned that the Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation orders should be reassessed if the patient's prognosis improves. In addition, it was found that the decision not to resuscitate was not always discussed with the patient or their family.

Conclusions

The study revealed an ethical conflict regarding Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation orders and their management by Chilean physicians. Therefore, it is necessary to create recommendations and provide training to guide professionals in this process, which should also involve patients and their families.

Discussion of the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders with the family caregivers of cancer patients: An example from a major cancer center in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of the family caregivers (FCGs) about the "do-not-resuscitate" (DNR) discussions and decision-making processes that occurred during hospitalization in a Saudi cancer center.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional survey, the FCGs of inpatients with advanced cancer completed a self-administered questionnaire soon after giving the patients a DNR status designation by their oncologists.

RESULTS

Eighty-two FCGs participated in the study, with a median age of 36.5 years and male preponderance (70.7%). The FCGs were mostly sons (41.5%), daughters (14%), or brothers (11%) of patients. Only 13.4% of mentally competent patients had the chance to listen to the DNR discussion. The discussion mainly occurred in the ward corridor (48.8%) or another room away from the patients' rooms (35.4%). In 36.6% of cases, the discussion took ≤5 minutes. Half of the FCGs stated that the oncologists' justifications for the DNR decision were unconvincing. The majority (84.2%) of the FCGs felt that the healthcare providers should share the DNR decision-making with patients (1.2%), families (69.5%), or both (13.4%). FCGs ≤ 30 years of age were more supportive of giving patients' families a chance to participate in the DNR decision-making process (p = 0.012).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

There is considerable room for improving the current practice of DNR discussions and decision-making processes in the studied setting. A readily feasible rectifying measure is to ensure the adequacy of time and privacy when planning for DNR discussions. We expect our findings to draw the attention of stakeholders to a compelling need for reviewing the current policies and processes, aiming to improve the experience of cancer patients and their FCGs.

Low adherence to legislation regarding Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation orders in a Swedish University Hospital

Background

The ethical principles of resuscitation have been incorporated into Swedish legislation so that a decision to not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) entails (1) consultation with patient or relatives if consultation with patient was not possible and documentation of their attitudes; (2) consultation with other licensed caregivers; (3) documentation of the grounds for the DNACPR. Our aim was to evaluate adherence to this legislation, explore the grounds for the decision and the attitudes of patients and relatives towards DNACPR orders.

Methods

We included DNACPR forms issued after admission through the emergency department at Karolinska University Hospital between 1st January and 31st October, 2015. Quantitative analysis evaluated adherence to legislation and qualitative analysis of a random sample of 20% evaluated the grounds for the decision and the attitudes.

Results

The cohort consisted of 3583 DNACPR forms. In 40% of these it was impossible to consult the patient, and relatives were consulted in 46% of these cases. For competent patients, consultation occurred in 28% and the most common attitude was to wish to refrain from resuscitation. Relatives were consulted in 26% and they mainly agreed with the decision. Grounds for the DNAR decision was most commonly severe chronic comorbidity, malignancy or multimorbidity with or without an acute condition. All requirements of the legislation were fulfilled in 10% of the cases.

Conclusion

In 90% of the cases physicians failed to fulfil all requirements in the Swedish legislation regarding DNAR orders. The decision was mostly based on chronic, severe comorbidity or multimorbidity.

Do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders: attitudes, perceptions and practices of Swedish physicians and nurses

Background

The values and attitudes of healthcare professionals influence their handling of ‘do-not-attempt-resuscitation’ (DNAR) orders. The aim of this study was a) to describe attitudes, perceptions and practices among Swedish physicians and nurses towards discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and DNAR orders with patients and their relatives, and b) to investigate if the physicians and nurses were familiar with the national ethical guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study based on a questionnaire and was conducted at 19 wards in two regional hospitals and one county hospital.

Results

210 physicians and 312 nurses (n = 522) responded to the questionnaire. Every third (35%) professional had read the guidelines with a lower proportion of physicians (29%) compared to nurses (38%). Around 40% of patients had the opportunity or ability to participate in the DNAR discussion. The DNAR decision was discussed with 38% of patients and the prognosis with 46%. Of the patients who were considered to have the ability to participate in the discussion, 79% did so. The majority (81%) of physicians and nurses believed that patients should always be asked about their preferences before a DNAR decision was made.

Conclusions

Swedish healthcare professionals take a patient’s autonomy into account regarding DNAR decisions. Nevertheless, as 50% of patients were considered unable to participate in the DNAR discussion, questions remain about the timing of patient participation and whether more discussions could have been conducted earlier. Given the uncertainty about timing, the majority of patients deemed competent participated in DNAR discussions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00604-8.

Do not attempt resuscitation order in Japan

Aim

In Japan, the do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order is practised routinely even though no related laws or guidelines exist. This study aimed to clarify the current status of DNAR, reveal existing DNAR‐related issues, and improve the application of DNAR.

Methods

A questionnaire survey of medical institutions in Kanagawa Prefecture (total population, 9,120,000) about the current status of DNAR was carried out.

Results

The results showed that DNAR has been practised at approximately 90% of the hospitals surveyed, but only about 30% have developed in‐hospital DNAR guidelines. Approximately 80% of the hospitals do not involve patients in the decision on their own DNAR orders. Because the DNAR order has not been legislated, it is often unclear whether to resuscitate patients when a request for an ambulance is made for a cardiac arrest at home.

Conclusion

It is necessary for prefectures, municipalities, and local medical control authorities to take the initiative in establishing an ordinance on DNAR orders and developing guidelines.

Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation decisions: an evidence synthesis

Background

Cardiac arrest is the final common step in the dying process. In the right context, resuscitation can reverse the dying process, yet success rates are low. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a highly invasive medical treatment, which, if applied in the wrong setting, can deprive the patient of dignified death. Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions provide a mechanism to withhold CPR. Recent scientific and lay press reports suggest that the implementation of DNACPR decisions in NHS practice is problematic.

Aims and objectives

This project sought to identify reasons why conflict and complaints arise, identify inconsistencies in NHS trusts’ implementation of national guidelines, understand health professionals’ experience in relation to DNACPR, its process and ethical challenges, and explore the literature for evidence to improve DNACPR policy and practice.

Methods

A systematic review synthesised evidence of processes, barriers and facilitators related to DNACPR decision-making and implementation. Reports from NHS trusts, the National Reporting and Learning System, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Office of the Chief Coroner, trust resuscitation policies and telephone calls to a patient information line were reviewed. Multiple focus groups explored service-provider perspectives on DNACPR decisions. A stakeholder group discussed the research findings and identified priorities for future research.

Results

The literature review found evidence that structured discussions at admission to hospital or following deterioration improved patient involvement and decision-making. Linking DNACPR to overall treatment plans improved clarity about goals of care, aided communication and reduced harms. Standardised documentation improved the frequency and quality of recording decisions. Approximately 1500 DNACPR incidents are reported annually. One-third of these report harms, including some instances of death. Problems with communication and variation in trusts’ implementation of national guidelines were common. Members of the public were concerned that their wishes with regard to resuscitation would not be respected. Clinicians felt that DNACPR decisions should be considered within the overall care of individual patients. Some clinicians avoid raising discussions about CPR for fear of conflict or complaint. A key theme across all focus groups, and reinforced by the literature review, was the negative impact on overall patient care of having a DNACPR decision and the conflation of ‘do not resuscitate’ with ‘do not provide active treatment’.

Limitations

The variable quality of some data sources allows potential overstatement or understatement of findings. However, data source triangulation identified common issues.

Conclusion

There is evidence of variation and suboptimal practice in relation to DNACPR decisions across health-care settings. There were deficiencies in considering, discussing and implementing the decision, as well as unintended consequences of DNACPR decisions being made on other aspects of patient care.

Future work

Recommendations supported by the stakeholder group are standardising NHS policies and forms, ensuring cross-boundary recognition of DNACPR decisions, integrating decisions with overall treatment plans and developing tools and training strategies to support clinician and patient decision-making, including improving communication.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002669.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.