Why do patients agree to a "Do not resuscitate" or "Full code" order? Perspectives of medical inpatients.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients who die in hospital have a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) order in place at the time of their death, yet we know very little about why some patients request or agree to a DNR order, why others don't, and how they view discussions of resuscitation status. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews of English-speaking medical inpatients who had clearly requested a DNR or full code (FC) order after a discussion with their admitting team, and analyzed the transcripts using a modified grounded-theory approach. RESULTS: We achieved conceptual saturation after conducting 44 interviews (27 DNR, 17 FC) over a 4-month period. Patients in the DNR group were much older than those in the FC group, but they had broadly similar admission diagnoses and comorbidities. DNR patients reported much greater familiarity with the subject and described a more positive experience than FC patients with their resuscitation discussions. Participants typically requested FC or DNR orders based on personal, relational or philosophical considerations, but these considerations manifested differently depending on the participant's preference for resuscitation. Most FC patients stated that would not want a prolonged period of life support, and they would not want resuscitation in the event of a poor quality of life. FC and DNR patients understood resuscitation and DNR orders differently. DNR patients described resuscitation in graphic, concrete terms that emphasized suffering and futility, and DNR orders in terms of comfort or natural processes. FC patients understood resuscitation in an abstract sense as something that restores life, while DNR orders were associated with substandard care or even euthanasia. CONCLUSION: Our study identified important differences and commonalities between the perspectives of DNR and FC patients. We hope that this information can be used to help physicians better understand the needs of their patients when discussing resuscitation.

Pre-B cell colony-enhancing factor (PBEF)/visfatin: a novel mediator of innate immunity.

Pre-B cell colony-enhancing factor (PBEF), also known as visfatin, is a highly conserved, 52-kDa protein found in living species from bacteria to humans. Originally a curiosity identified serendipitously in microarray studies but having no obvious functional importance, PBEF has now been shown to exert three distinct activities of central importance to cellular energetics and innate immunity. Within the cell, PBEF functions as a nicotinamide phosphoribosyl transferase, the rate-limiting step in a salvage pathway of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) biosynthesis. By virtue of this role, it can regulate cellular levels of NAD and so impact not only cellular energetics but also NAD-dependent enzymes such as sirtuins. Although it lacks a signal peptide, PBEF is released by a variety of cells, and elevated levels can be found in the systemic circulation of patients with a variety of inflammatory diseases. As an extracellular cytokine, PBEF can induce the cellular expression of inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-alpha, IL-1beta, and IL-6. Finally, PBEF has been shown to be an adipokine expressed by fat cells that exerts a number of insulin mimetic and antagonistic effects. PBEF expression is up-regulated in a variety of acute and chronic inflammatory diseases including sepsis, acute lung injury, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and myocardial infarction and plays a key role in the persistence of inflammation through its capacity to inhibit neutrophil apoptosis. This review summarizes the admittedly incomplete body of emerging knowledge about a remarkable new mediator of innate immunity.

Variables associated with medication errors in pediatric emergency medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Medication errors are a common cause of iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. The incidence of medication errors in pediatric emergency departments (EDs) has not been described. The objective of this study was to describe the incidence and type of drug errors in a pediatric ED and determine factors associated with risk of errors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of the charts of 1532 children who were treated in the ED of a pediatric tertiary care hospital during 12 randomly selected days from the summer of 2000. Two pediatricians, blinded to other study variables, independently decided whether a medication error occurred and ranked it according to a severity score. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Prescribing errors were identified in 10.1% of the charts. The following variables were associated in univariate analysis with an increased proportion of errors: patients seen between 4 AM and 8 AM (odds ratio [OR]: 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-5.50), patients with severe disease (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.18-5.41), medication ordered by a trainee (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.03-2.11), and patients seen during weekends (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.04-2.11). Among trainees, there was a higher rate of errors at the beginning of the academic year (OR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.06-2.64). Logistic regression revealed increased risk for errors when a medication was ordered by a trainee (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.06-2.52) and in seriously ill patients (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.06-2.26). CONCLUSIONS: In the pediatric ED, trainees are more likely to commit prescribing errors, and the most seriously ill patients are more likely to be subjected to prescribing errors.