Association between Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate Status and Resident Physician Decision-making. A National Survey

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Differences in Critical Care Near the End of Life: A Narrative Review

Patients from groups that are racially/ethnically minoritized or of low socioeconomic status receive more intensive care near the end of life, endorse preferences for more life-sustaining treatments, experience lower quality communication from clinicians, and report worse quality of dying than other patients. There are many contributory factors, including system (eg, lack of intensive outpatient symptom management resources), clinician (eg, low-quality serious illness communication), and patient (eg, cultural norms) factors. System and clinician factors contribute to disparities and ought to be remedied, while patient factors simply reflect differences in care and may not be appropriate targets for intervention.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with do-not-resuscitate and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment in a medical intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In the intensive care unit (ICU), we may encounter patients who have completed a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) or a Physician Orders to Stop Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) document. However, the characteristics of ICU patients who choose DNR/POLST are not well understood.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the electronic medical records of 577 patients admitted to a medical ICU from October 2019 to November 2020, focusing on the characteristics of patients according to whether they completed DNR/POLST documents. Patients were categorized into DNR/POLST group and no DNR/POLST group according to whether they completed DNR/POLST documents, and logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate factors influencing DNR/POLST document completion.

RESULTS

A total of 577 patients were admitted to the ICU. Of these, 211 patients (36.6%) had DNR or POLST records. DNR and/or POLST were completed prior to ICU admission in 48 (22.7%) patients. The DNR/POLST group was older (72.9 ± 13.5 vs. 67.6 ± 13.8 years, p < 0.001) and had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (26.1 ± 9.2 vs. 20.3 ± 7.7, p < 0.001) and clinical frailty scale (5.1 ± 1.4 vs. 4.4 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) than the other groups. Solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, and chronic lung disease were the most common comorbidities in the DNR/POLST groups. The DNR/POLST group had higher ICU and in-hospital mortality and more invasive treatments (arterial line, central line, renal replacement therapy, invasive mechanical ventilation) than the other groups. Body mass index, APAHCE II score, hematologic malignancy, DNR/POLST were factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ICU patients, 36.6% had DNR or POLST orders and received more invasive treatments. This is contrary to the common belief that DNR/POLST patients would receive less invasive treatment and underscores the need to better understand and include end-of-life care as an important ongoing aspect of patient care, along with communication with patients and families.

Utilization of Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Older Adults During COVID-19 Surges in 2020

Background: Reports of poor outcomes among older adults with COVID-19 may have changed patient perceptions of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders or caused providers to pressure older adults into accepting DNR orders to conserve resources. Objective: We determined early-DNR utilization during COVID-19 surges compared with nonsurge periods among nonsurgical adults ≥75 and its connection to hospital mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults ≥75 years using the California Patient Discharge Database 2020. The primary outcome was early-DNR utilization. Control cohorts included nonsurgical adults <75 years in 2020 and nonsurgical adults ≥75 in 2019. Multiple causal inference methods were used to address measured and unmeasured confounding. Results: A total of 487,955 adults ≥75 years were identified, with 233,678 admitted during COVID-19 surges. Older adults admitted during surges had higher rates of early-DNR orders (30.1% vs. 29.4%, absolute risk differences = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-1.0) even after adjusting for patient case-mix (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04). Patients with early-DNR orders experienced higher hospital mortality (15.5% vs. 4.8%, aOR = 3.96, 95% CI: 3.85-4.06). Difference-in-difference analyses demonstrated that adults <75 years in 2020 and adults ≥75 years in 2019 did not experience variation in early-DNR utilization. Conclusions: Older adults had slightly higher rates of early-DNR orders during COVID-19 surges compared with nonsurge periods. While the difference in early-DNR utilization was small, it was linked to higher odds of death. The increase in early-DNR use only during COVID-19 surges and only among older adults may reflect changes in patient preferences or increased pressure on older adults stemming from provider fears of rationing during COVID-19 surges.

Code status orders in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic created complex challenges regarding the timing and appropriateness of do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) and/or Do Not Intubate (DNI) code status orders. This paper sought to determine differences in utilization of DNACPR and/or DNI orders during different time periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, including prevalence, predictors, timing, and outcomes associated with having a documented DNACPR and/or DNI order in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at two hospitals located in the Midwest. DNACPR code status orders including, DNI orders, demographics, labs, COVID-19 treatments, clinical interventions during hospitalization, and outcome measures including mortality, discharge disposition, and hospice utilization were collected. Patients were divided into two time periods (early and late) by timing of hospitalization during the first wave of the pandemic (March-October 2020).

Results

Among 1375 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 19% (n = 258) of all patients had a documented DNACPR and/or DNI order. In multivariable analysis, age (older) p =< 0.01, OR 1.12 and hospitalization early in the pandemic p = 0.01, OR 2.08, were associated with having a DNACPR order. Median day from DNACPR order to death varied between cohorts p => 0.01 (early cohort 5 days versus late cohort 2 days). In-hospital mortality did not differ between cohorts among patients with DNACPR orders, p = 0.80.

Conclusions

There was a higher prevalence of DNACPR and/or DNI orders and these orders were written earlier in the hospital course for patients hospitalized early in the pandemic versus later despite similarities in clinical characteristics and medical interventions. Changes in clinical care between cohorts may be due to fear of resource shortages and changes in knowledge about COVID-19.

Socio-economic determinants for the place of last care: results from the acute palliative care unit of a large comprehensive cancer center in a high-income country in Europe

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The place of last care carries importance for patients at the end of life. It is influenced by the realities of the social welfare and healthcare systems, cultural aspects, and symptom burden. This study aims to investigate the place of care trajectories of patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of all patients hospitalized on our acute palliative care unit in 2019 were assessed. Demographic, socio-economic and disease characteristics were recorded. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to identify determinants for place of last care.

RESULTS

A total of 377 patients were included in this study. Median age was 71 (IQR, 59-81) years. Of these patients, 56% (n = 210) were male. The majority of patients was Swiss (80%; n = 300); about 60% (n = 226) reported a Christian confession; and 77% had completed high school or tertiary education. Most patients (80%, n = 300) had a cancer diagnosis. The acute palliative care unit was the place of last care for 54% of patients. Gender, nationality, religion, health insurance, and highest level of completed education were no predictors for place of last care, yet previous outpatient palliative care involvement decreased the odds of dying in a hospital (OR, 0.301; 95% CI, 0.180-0.505; p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

More than half of patients admitted for end-of-life care died on the acute palliative care unit. While socio-economic factors did not determine place of last care, previous involvement of outpatient palliative care is a lever to facilitate dying at home.

Code Status Orders: Do the Options Matter?

BACKGROUND

Code status orders in hospitalized patients guide urgent medical decisions. Inconsistent terminology and treatment options contribute to varied interpretations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare two code status order options, traditional (three option) and modified to include additional care options (four option).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, cross-sectional survey conducted on February-March 2020. Participants were provided with six clinical scenarios and randomly assigned to the three or four option code status order. In three scenarios, participants determined the most appropriate code status. Three scenarios provided clinical details and code status and respondents were asked whether they would provide a particular intervention. This study was conducted at three urban, academic hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinicians who routinely utilize code status orders. Of 4006 participants eligible, 549 (14%) were included.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary objective was consensus (most commonly selected answer) based on provided code status options. Secondary objectives included variables associated with participant responses, participant code status model preference, and participant confidence about whether their selections would match their peers.

KEY RESULTS

In the three scenarios participants selected the appropriate code status, there was no difference in consensus for the control scenario, and higher consensus in the three option group (p-values < 0.05) for the remaining two scenarios. In the scenarios to determine if a clinical intervention was appropriate, two of the scenarios had higher consensus in the three option group (p-values 0.018 and < 0.05) and one had higher consensus in the four option group (p-value 0.001). Participants in the three option model were more confident that their peers selected the same code status (p-value 0.0014); however, most participants (72%) preferred the four option model.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither code status model led to consistent results. The three option model provided consistency more often; however, the majority of participants preferred the four option model.

The intersection of prognostication and code status in patients with severe brain injury

Accurately estimating the prognosis of brain injury patients can be difficult, especially early in their course. Prognostication is important because it largely determines the care level we provide, from aggressive treatment for patients we predict could have a good outcome to withdrawal of treatment for those we expect will have a poor outcome. Accurate prognostication is required for ethical decision-making. However, several studies have shown that prognostication is frequently inaccurate and variable. Overly optimistic prognostication can lead to false hope and futile care. Overly pessimistic prognostication can lead to therapeutic nihilism. Overlapping is the powerful effect that cognitive biases, in particular code status, can play in shaping our perceptions and the care level we provide. The presence of Do Not Resuscitate orders has been shown to be associated with increased mortality. Based on a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed journals using a wide range of key terms, including prognostication, critical illness, brain injury, cognitive bias, and code status, the following is a review of prognostic accuracy and the effect of code status on outcome. Because withdrawal of treatment is the most common cause of death in the ICU, a clearer understanding of this intersection of prognostication and code status is needed.

Treatment intensity and mortality among COVID-19 patients with dementia: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether dementia is associated with treatment intensity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

This study includes review of the medical records for patients >60 years of age (n = 5394) hospitalized with COVID-19 from 132 community hospitals between March and June 2020. We examined the relationships between dementia and treatment intensity (including intensive care unit [ICU] admission and mechanical ventilation [MV] and care processes that may influence them, including advance care planning [ACP] billing and do-not-resuscitate [DNR] orders) and in-hospital mortality adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, month of hospitalization, and clustering within hospital. We further explored the effect of ACP conversations on the relationship between dementia and outcomes, both at the individual patient level (effect of having ACP) and at the hospital level (effect of being treated at a hospital with low: <10%, medium 10%-20%, or high >20% ACP rates).

RESULTS

Ten percent (n = 522) of the patients had documented dementia. Dementia patients were older (>80 years: 60% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001), had a lower burden of comorbidity (3+ comorbidities: 31% vs. 38%, p = 0.003), were more likely to have ACP (28% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001) and a DNR order (52% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001), had similar rates of ICU admission (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.258), were less likely to receive MV (11% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), and more likely to die (22% vs. 14%, p < 0.0001). Differential treatment intensity among patients with dementia was concentrated in hospitals with low, dementia-biased ACP billing practices (risk-adjusted ICU use: 21% vs. 30%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, p = 0.016; risk-adjusted MV use: 6% vs. 16%, OR = 0.3, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Dementia was associated with lower treatment intensity and higher mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Differential treatment intensity was concentrated in low ACP billing hospitals suggesting an interplay between provider bias and "preference-sensitive" care for COVID-19.

DNR Code Status Is Not Associated with Under-Utilization of Inpatient Transthoracic Echocardiograms

In the strictest sense, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status means that cardiopulmonary resuscitation should not be performed after death has occurred; all other medical interventions in line with a patient's goals of care should be implemented. The use of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in patients with DNR status is unknown. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the utilization of TTE among patients with DNR status using this retrospective data analysis. A total of 16,546 patient admissions were included in the final study. A total of 4370 (26.4%) of the patients had a TTE during hospitalization; among full code patients, 3976 (25.7%) underwent TTE, whereas TTEs were performed in 394 (37.4%) of DNR patients. On univariate logistic regression analysis, full code status had OR (95% confidence interval, CI) 0.57 (0.51-0.66), p < 0.01 compared with DNR status for the performance of inpatient TTE. In the final multivariate model adjusted for age, sex, race, and clinical comorbidities, the full code patients had OR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.79-1.05), p = 0.22 compared with DNR patients for the performance of inpatient TTE. DNR status is not associated with a decrease in inpatient transthoracic echocardiography performance.

Stability of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Hospitalized Adults: A Population-Based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Prior work has shown substantial between-hospital variation in do-not-resuscitate orders, but stability of do-not-resuscitate preferences between hospitalizations and the institutional influence on do-not-resuscitate reversals are unclear. We determined the extent of do-not-resuscitate reversals between hospitalizations and the association of the readmission hospital with do-not-resuscitate reversal.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

California Patient Discharge Database, 2016-2018.

PATIENTS

Nonsurgical patients admitted to an acute care hospital with an early do-not-resuscitate order (within 24 hr of admission).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified nonsurgical adult patients who survived an initial hospitalization with an early-do-not-resuscitate order and were readmitted within 30 days. The primary outcome was the association of do-not-resuscitate reversal with readmission to the same or different hospital from the initial hospital. Secondary outcomes included association of readmission to a low versus high do-not-resuscitate-rate hospital with do-not-resuscitate reversal. Among 49,336 patients readmitted within 30 days following a first do-not-resuscitate hospitalization, 22,251 (45.1%) experienced do-not-resuscitate reversal upon readmission. Patients readmitted to a different hospital versus the same hospital were at higher risk of do-not-resuscitate reversal (59.5% vs 38.5%; p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio = 2.4; 95% CI, 2.3-2.5). Patients readmitted to low versus high do-not-resuscitate-rate hospitals were more likely to have do-not-resuscitate reversals (do-not-resuscitate-rate quartile 1 77.0% vs quartile 4 27.2%; p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio = 11.9; 95% CI, 10.7-13.2). When readmitted to a different versus the same hospital, patients with do-not-resuscitate reversal had higher rates of mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1) and hospital death (adjusted odds ratio = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Do-not-resuscitate reversals at the time of readmission are more common than previously reported. Although changes in patient preferences may partially explain between-hospital differences, we observed a strong hospital effect contributing to high do-not-resuscitate-reversal rates with significant implications for patient outcomes and resource.

Assessment of Cancer Survivorship Training and Knowledge Among Resident Physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology

The number of gynecologic cancer survivors in the USA is expected to grow to nearly 2 million by 2029. Gynecologic oncologists alone will not be able to care for all of these women. Thus, preparation of general obstetrician/gynecologists (OBGYNs) to deliver this care is crucial. Our objective was to assess cancer survivorship training (CST) among OB/GYN residents and to evaluate knowledge in basic gynecologic cancer survivorship. OB/GYN residents were recruited nationally to complete a de novo questionnaire, querying demographics, hours of CST received, teaching methods used, and efficacy of those methods. Survivorship knowledge was assessed by ten questions based on the 2017 Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations on post-treatment surveillance, which includes topics appropriate for generalists. Analyses were done using t tests and ANOVA, with significance set at p = 0.05. In total, 128 residents responded to the survey. Observation was the most common method of CST (53%), with patient contact reported as the most effective method (42.6%). The mean score of correct responses (MSCRs) among all respondents was 61.5%. MSCR significantly improved with increasing post-graduate year (PGY) (p = 0.003). Survivorship training method was not associated with improved MSCR. Improvements in MSCR were observed with an increasing number of CST hours (p = 0.011). A total of 13.9% of residents reported feeling "very comfortable" with survivorship care, yet 88.5% of respondents indicated they did not want additional CST. More hours of CST are associated with improved resident in knowledge in cancer survivorship care, though deficits still remain. Further investigation into optimizing CST is warranted.

Original Research: Nurses' Perspectives on Caring for Patients with Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders

BACKGROUND

Confusion about what a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order means, including its misinterpretation as "do not treat," has been extensively documented in the literature. Yet there is a paucity of research concerning nurses' perspectives on DNR orders.

PURPOSE AND DESIGN

This mixed-methods study was designed to explore nurses' perspectives on the meaning and interpretation of DNR orders in relation to caring for hospitalized adults with such orders.

METHODS

Direct care nurses on three units in a large urban hospital were asked to respond online to a case study by indicating how they would prioritize care based on the patient's DNR designation. These nurses were then invited to participate in open-ended interviews with a nurse researcher. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed.

FINDINGS

A total of 35 nurses responded to the case study survey. The majority chose to prioritize palliative care, despite no indication that any plan of care was in place. Thirteen nurses also completed a one-on-one interview. Analysis of interview data revealed this overarching theme: varying interpretations of DNR orders among nurses were common, resulting in unintended consequences. Participants also reported perceived variances among health care team members, patients, and family members. Such misinterpretations resulted in shifts in care, varying responses to deteriorating status, tension, and differences in role expectations for health care team members.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses have opportunities to address misconceptions about care for patients with DNR orders through practice, education, advocacy and policy, and research.

Variation in the design of Do Not Resuscitate orders and other code status options: a multi-institutional qualitative study

BACKGROUND

US hospitals typically provide a set of code status options that includes Full Code and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) but often includes additional options. Although US hospitals differ in the design of code status options, this variation and its impacts have not been empirically studied.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Multi-institutional qualitative study at 7 US hospitals selected for variability in geographical location, type of institution and design of code status options. We triangulated across three data sources (policy documents, code status ordering menus and in-depth physician interviews) to characterise the code status options available at each hospital. Using inductive qualitative methods, we investigated design differences in hospital code status options and the perceived impacts of these differences.

RESULTS

The code status options at each hospital varied widely with regard to the number of code status options, the names and definitions of code status options, and the formatting and capabilities of code status ordering menus. DNR orders were named and defined differently at each hospital studied. We identified five key design characteristics that impact the function of a code status order. Each hospital's code status options were unique with respect to these characteristics, indicating that code status plays differing roles in each hospital. Physician participants perceived that the design of code status options shapes communication and decision-making practices about resuscitation and life-sustaining treatments, especially at the end of life. We identified four potential mechanisms through which this may occur: framing conversations, prompting decisions, shaping inferences and creating categories.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantive differences in the design of hospital code status options that may contribute to known variability in end-of-life care and treatment intensity among US hospitals. Our framework can be used to design hospital code status options or evaluate their function.

Use of Combined Do-Not-Resuscitate/Do-Not Intubate Orders Without Documentation of Intubation Preferences: A Retrospective Observational Study at an Academic Level 1 Trauma Center Code Status and Intubation Preferences

BACKGROUND

Combining orders for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) for cardiac arrest with do-not-intubate (DNI) orders into a DNR/DNI code status is not evidence-based practice and may violate patient autonomy and informed consent when providers discuss intubation only in the context of CPR.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How often do providers refer to patients with a DNR order as "DNR/DNI" without documentation of refusal of intubation for non-arrest situations?

METHODS

Retrospective observational study of adults (18 years of age or older) hospitalized in a Level 1 trauma/academic hospital between July 2017 and June 2018 inclusive with DNR orders placed during hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of 422 hospitalized adults with DNR orders, 261 (61.9%) had code status written in progress notes as DNR/DNI. Providers' use of the term DNR/DNI in progress notes was significantly (OR, 2.21; 99% CI, 1.12-4.37) more common on medical hospital services (hospitalist, family medicine, internal medicine) than on nonmedical ward services (medical/surgical ICUs, surgery, psychiatry, neurology services). Of 261 "DNR/DNI" patients, providers did not document informed refusal of intubation for nonarrest situations for 68 (26.0%) of patients. By comparison, of 161 patients for whom providers documented code status in progress notes as DNR alone, 69 (42.9%) did have documentation of refusal of intubation for nonarrest events. Therefore, if a DNR/DNI code status was used in a nonarrest emergency to determine whether to intubate a patient, 68 (16.1%) of 422 patients could inappropriately be denied intubation without informed refusal (or despite their informed acceptance), and 69 (16.4%) could inappropriately be intubated despite their documented refusal of intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

Conflation of DNR and DNI into DNR/DNI does not reliably distinguish patients who refuse or accept intubation for indications other than cardiac arrest, and thus may inappropriately deny desired intubation for those who would accept it, and inappropriately impose intubation on patients who would not.

Pediatricians' Perceptions Toward Do Not Resuscitate: A Survey in Saudi Arabia and Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the pediatricians' attitudes and perceptions toward do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in a specific region of the world not fully explored before.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between March 4 and May 30, 2018. Pediatricians from three public hospitals in the city of Riyadh were asked to respond to a questionnaire consisting of 22 questions designed to meet the objectives of our study.

RESULTS

A total of 203 pediatricians (51.2% female) completed the questionnaire, both junior pediatricians (JPs) and senior pediatricians (SPs). A majority (58.9% of JPs and 61.4% of SPs) thought patients have the right to demand intensive care, despite their terminal illness. Half the participants in both groups thought that DNR is a physician's decision. Only 9.3% of JPs and 12.5% of SPs felt comfortable discussing DNR with patients/families. Medical school was also a source of knowledge on DNR issues, mainly for JPs (40.2% of JPs vs 20.8% of SPs, P=0.005). Half the participants felt that DNR is consistent with Islamic beliefs, while 57.9% of JPs vs 41.7% of SPs felt they are legally protected. Hospital policy was clear to 48.6% of JPs vs 66.7% of SPs, while procedure was clear to 35.5% of JPs vs 49% of SPs.

CONCLUSION

Several factors are present that may hinder DNR implementation, such as doubts concerning being legally protected, doubts concerning consistency with Islamic sharia, unclear policies and procedures, and lack of training and orientation on DNR issues. Policies may need to include patients as decision-makers.

Association Between Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate Orders and Emergency Medicine Residents’ Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that do not resuscitate (DNR) and do not intubate (DNI) orders may be construed by physicians to be more restrictive than intended by patients. Previous studies of physicians found that DNR/DNI orders are associated with being less willing to provide invasive care.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of code status on emergency residents' decision-making regarding offering invasive procedures for those patients with DNR/DNI compared with their full code counterparts.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide survey of emergency medicine residents using an instrument of 4 clinical vignettes involving patients with serious illnesses. Two versions of the survey, survey A and survey B, alternated the DNR/DNI and full code status for the vignettes. Residency leaders were contacted in August 2018 to distribute the survey to their residents.

RESULTS

Three hundred and three residents responded from across the country. The code status was strongly associated with decisions to intubate or perform CPR and influenced the willingness to offer other invasive procedures. DNR/DNI status was associated with less frequent willingness to place central venous catheters (88.2% for DNR/DNI vs. 97.2% for full code, p < 0.001), admit patients to the intensive care unit (89.9% vs. 99.0%, p < 0.001), offer dialysis (79.3% vs. 98.0%, p < 0.001), and surgical consultation (78.7% vs. 94.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide survey, emergency medicine residents were less willing to provide invasive procedures for patients with DNR/DNI status, including the placement of central venous catheters, admission to the intensive care unit, and consultation for dialysis and surgery.

Early Do-Not-Resuscitate Directives Decrease Invasive Procedures and Health Care Expenses During the Final Hospitalization of Life of COPD Patients

CONTEXT

Nearly 70% of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) directives for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients are established during their terminal hospitalization. Whether patient use of end-of-life resources differs between early and late establishment of a DNR is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare end-of-life resource use between patients according to DNR directive status: no DNR, early DNR (EDNR) (established before terminal hospitalization), and late DNR (LDNR) (established during terminal hospitalization).

METHODS

Electronic health records from all COPD decedents in a teaching hospital in Taiwan were analyzed retrospectively with respect to medical resource use during the last year of life and medical expenditures during the last hospitalization. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to determine independent predictors of cost.

RESULTS

Of the 361 COPD patients enrolled, 318 (88.1%) died with a DNR directive, 31.4% of which were EDNR. COPD decedents with EDNR were less likely to be admitted to intensive care units (12.0%, 55.5%, and 60.5% for EDNR, LDNR, and no DNR, respectively), had lower total medical expenditures, and were less likely to undergo invasive mechanical ventilator support during their terminal hospitalization. The average total medical cost during the last hospitalization was nearly twofold greater for LDNR than for EDNR decedents. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that nearly 60% of medical expenses incurred were significantly attributable to no EDNR, younger age, longer length of hospital stay, and more comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Although 88% of COPD decedents died with a DNR directive, 70% of these directives were established late. LDNR results in lower quality of care and greater intensive care resource use in end-of-life COPD patients.

Toward Understanding the Relationship Between Prioritized Values and Preferences for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Seriously Ill Adults

CONTEXT

Prioritizing among potentially conflicting end-of-life values may help patients discriminate among treatments and allow clinicians to align treatments with values.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate end-of-life values that patients prioritize when facing explicit trade-offs and identify predictors of patients whose values and treatment preferences seem inconsistent.

METHODS

Analysis of surveys from a multi-center cluster-randomized trial of patients with serious illness. Respondents prioritized end-of-life values and identified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in two health states.

RESULTS

Of 535 patients, 60% prioritized relief of discomfort over extending life, 17% prioritized extending life over relief of discomfort, and 23% were unsure. Patients prioritizing extending life were most likely to prefer CPR, with 93% preferring CPR in current health and 67% preferring CPR if dependent on others, compared with 69% and 21%, respectively, for patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, and 78% and 33%, respectively, for patients unsure of their prioritized value (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, preference for CPR in current health was less likely among older patients (odds ratio 0.958 per year; 95% CI 0.935, 0.981) and more likely with better self-perceived health (odds ratio 1.402 per level of health; 95% CI 1.090, 1.804).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians face challenges as they clarify patient values and align treatments with values. Patients' values predicted CPR preferences, but a substantial proportion of patients expressed CPR preferences that appeared potentially inconsistent with their primary value. Clinicians should question assumptions about relationships between values and CPR preferences. Further research is needed to identify ways to use values to guide treatment decisions.

The effect of patient code status on surgical resident decision making: A national survey of general surgery residents

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have demonstrated that, compared with their full code counterparts, patients with do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate status have higher in-hospital and postdischarge mortality than predicted by clinical characteristics alone. We sought to determine whether patient code status affects surgical resident decision making.

METHODS

We created an online survey that consisted of 4 vignettes, followed by 10 questions regarding decisions on possible diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. All program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery residencies were randomized to receive 1 of 2 survey versions that differed only in the code status of the patients described, with requests to distribute the survey to their residents. Responses to each question were based on a Likert scale.

RESULTS

A total of 194 residents completed the survey, 51% of whom were women, and all years of surgical residency were represented. In all vignettes, patient code status influenced perioperative medical decisions, ranging from initiation of dialysis to intensive care unit transfer. In 2 vignettes, it affected decisions to proceed with indicated emergency operations.

CONCLUSION

When presented with patient scenarios pertaining to clinical decision making, surgical residents tend to assume that patients with a do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate code status would prefer to receive less aggressive care overall. As a result, the delivery of appropriate surgical care may be improperly limited unless a patient's goals of care are explicitly stated. It is important for surgical residents to understand that a do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate code status should not be interpreted as a "do-not-treat" status.

An Individualized, Interactive Intervention Promotes Terminally Ill Cancer Patients' Prognostic Awareness and Reduces Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Received in the Last Month of Life: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE

Half of advanced cancer patients do not have accurate prognostic awareness (PA). However, few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have focused on facilitating patients' PA to reduce their life-sustaining treatments at end of life (EOL). To address these issues, we conducted a double-blinded RCT on terminally ill cancer patients.

METHODS

Experimental-arm participants received an individualized, interactive intervention tailored to their readiness for advanced care planning and prognostic information. Control-arm participants received a symptom-management educational treatment. Effectiveness of our intervention in facilitating accurate PA and reducing life-sustaining treatments received, two secondary RCT outcomes, was evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 460) were randomly assigned 1:1 to experimental and control arms, each with 215 participants in the final sample. Referring to 151-180 days before death, experimental-arm participants had significantly higher odds of accurate PA than control-arm participants 61-90, 91-120, and 121-150 days before death (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]: 2.04 [1.16-3.61], 1.94 [1.09-3.45], and 1.93 [1.16-3.21], respectively), but not one to 60 days before death. Experimental-arm participants with accurate PA were significantly less likely than control-arm participants without accurate PA to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (0.16 [0.03-0.73]), but not less likely to receive intensive care unit care and mechanical ventilation in their last month.

CONCLUSION

Our intervention facilitated cancer patients' accurate PA early in their dying trajectory, reducing the risk of receiving CPR in the last month. Health care professionals should cultivate cancer patients' accurate PA early in the terminal-illness trajectory to allow them sufficient time to make informed EOL-care decisions to reduce CPR at EOL.

More than one in three proxies do not know their loved one's current code status: An observational study in a Maryland ICU

Rationale

The majority of ICU patients lack decision-making capacity at some point during their ICU stay. However the extent to which proxy decision-makers are engaged in decisions about their patient’s care is challenging to quantify.

Objectives

To assess 1)whether proxies know their patient’s actual code status as recorded in the electronic medical record (EMR), and 2)whether code status orders reflect ICU patient preferences as reported by proxy decision-makers.

Methods

We enrolled proxy decision-makers for 96 days starting January 4, 2016. Proxies were asked about the patient’s goals of care, preferred code status, and actual code status. Responses were compared to code status orders in the EMR at the time of interview. Characteristics of patients and proxies who correctly vs incorrectly identified actual code status were compared, as were characteristics of proxies who reported a preferred code status that did vs did not match actual code status.

Measurements and main results

Among 111 proxies, 42 (38%) were incorrect or unsure about the patient’s actual code status and those who were correct vs. incorrect or unsure were similar in age, race, and years of education (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Twenty-nine percent reported a preferred code status that did not match the patient’s code status in the EMR. Matching preferred and actual code status was not associated with a patient’s age, gender, income, admission diagnosis, or subsequent in-hospital mortality or with proxy age, gender, race, education level, or relation to the patient (P>0.20 for all comparisons).

Conclusions

More than 1 in 3 proxies is incorrect or unsure about their patient’s actual code status and more than 1 in 4 proxies reported that a preferred code status that did not match orders in the EMR. Proxy age, race, gender and education level were not associated with correctly identifying code status or code status concordance.