Problems Experienced by Health Care Professionals with Do not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) Orders - A Qualitative Study.

A 'Do Not Attempt Resuscitation' (DNAR) order is one of the most important yet difficult medical decisions. Despite the recent European guidelines, health care professionals (HCPs) in general perceive challenges in making a DNAR order. We aimed to evaluate the types of problems related to DNAR order making. A link to a web-based multiple-choice questionnaire including open-ended questions was sent by e-mail to all physicians and nurses working in the Tampere University Hospital special responsibility area covering a catchment area of 900,000 Finns. The questionnaire covered issues on DNAR order making, its meaning and documentation. Here we report the analysis of the open-ended questions, examined based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework with expanded individual decisional needs categories. Qualitative data describing respondents' opinions (N=648) regarding problems related to DNAR order decision making were analysed using Atlas.ti 23.12 software. In total, 599 statements (phrases) dealing with inadequate advice, information, emotional support, and instrumental help were identified. Our results show that HCPs experience lack of support in DNAR decision making on multiple levels. Digital decision-making support integrated into electronic patient records (EPR) to assure timely and clearly visible DNAR orders could be beneficial.

Knowledge, Attitude and Decision-making of Nurses in the Resuscitation Team towards Terminating Resuscitation and Do-not-Resuscitate Order.

Background: Making appropriate decisions for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is very challenging for healthcare providers. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge, attitude, and decision making about do-not-resuscitate (DNR) and termination of resuscitation (ToR) among nurses in the resuscitation team. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in April-September 2020. Participants were 128 nurses from the CPR teams of two hospitals in Kermanshah and Hamedan, Iran. A valid and reliable researcher-made instrument was used for data collection. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests, the Spearman's correlation analysis, and the logistic and rank regression analyses. Results: Only 22.7% and 37.5% of participants had adequate knowledge about ToR and DNR. The significant predictor of DNR and ToR knowledge was educational level and the significant predictors of decision making for CPR were educational level, gender, and history of receiving CPR-related education (P<0.05). When facing a cardiac arrest and indication of DNR or ToR, 12.5% of participants reported that they would not start CPR, 21.5% of them reported that they would terminate CPR, and 14.8% of them reported that they would perform slow code. The DNR decision had significant relationship with educational level, DNR knowledge, and ToR knowledge (P< 0.05), while the ToR decision had significant relationship with educational level and ToR knowledge (P<0.05). Conclusion: Nurses' limited DNR and ToR knowledge and physicians' conflicting orders and documentation can cause ethical challenges for nurses. Clear guidelines for DNR orders or TOR is necessary for nurses, in order to prevent any potential confusion, legal or psychosocial issues and concerns surrounding CPR and improve their involvement in CPR decision making process.

Viability and thresholds for treatment of extremely preterm infants: survey of UK neonatal professionals.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about treatments for extremely preterm infants (EPIs) born in the 'grey zone' of viability can be ethically complex. This 2020 survey aimed to determine views of UK neonatal staff about thresholds for treatment of EPIs given a recently revised national Framework for Practice from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. METHODS: The online survey requested participants indicate the lowest gestation at which they would be willing to offer active treatment and the highest gestation at which they would withhold active treatment of an EPI at parental request (their lower and upper thresholds). Relative risks were used to compare respondents' views based on profession and neonatal unit designation. Further questions explored respondents' conceptual understanding of viability. RESULTS: 336 respondents included 167 consultants, 127 registrars/fellows and 42 advanced neonatal nurse practitioners (ANNPs). Respondents reported a median grey zone for neonatal resuscitation between 22+1 and 24+0 weeks' gestation. Registrars/fellows were more likely to select a lower threshold at 22+0 weeks compared with consultants (Relative Risk (RR)=1.37 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.74)) and ANNPs (RR=2.68 (95% CI 1.42 to 5.06)). Those working in neonatal intensive care units compared with other units were also more likely to offer active treatment at 22+0 weeks (RR=1.86 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.94)). Most participants understood a fetus/newborn to be 'viable' if it was possible to survive, regardless of disability, with medical interventions accessible to the treating team. CONCLUSION: Compared with previous studies, we found a shift in the reported lower threshold for resuscitation in the UK, with greater acceptance of active treatment for infants <23 weeks' gestation.

Perioperative do-not-resuscitate orders: Trainee experiential learning in preserving patient autonomy and knowledge of professional guidelines.

ABSTRACT: Anesthesiologists and surgeons have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with professional guidelines when providing care for surgical patients with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. This substantially infringes on patient's self-autonomy; therefore, leading to substandard care particularly for palliative surgical procedures. The interventional nature of surgical procedures may create a different mentality of surgical "buy-in," that may unintentionally prioritize survivability over maintaining patient self-autonomy. While previous literature has demonstrated gains in communication skills with simulation training, no specific educational curriculum has been proposed to specifically address perioperative code status discussions. We designed a simulated standardized patient actor (SPA) encounter at the beginning of post-graduate year (PGY) 2, corresponding to the initiation of anesthesiology specific training, allowing residents to focus on the perioperative discussion in relation to the SPA's DNR order.Forty four anesthesiology residents volunteered to participate in the study. PGY-2 group (n = 17) completed an immediate post-intervention assessment, while PGY-3 group (n = 13) completed the assessment approximately 1 year after the educational initiative to ascertain retention. PGY-4 residents (n = 14) did not undergo any specific educational intervention on the topic, but were given the same assessment. The assessment consisted of an anonymized survey that examined familiarity with professional guidelines and hospital policies in relation to perioperative DNR orders. Subsequently, survey responses were compared between classes.Study participants that had not participated in the educational intervention reported a lack of prior formalized instruction on caring for intraoperative DNR patients. Second and third year residents outperformed senior residents in being aware of the professional guidelines that detail perioperative code status decision-making (47%, 62% vs 21%, P = .004). PGY-3 residents outperformed PGY-4 residents in correctly identifying a commonly held misconception that institutional policies allow for automatic perioperative DNR suspensions (85% vs 43%; P = .02). Residents from the PGY-3 class, who were 1 year removed the educational intervention while gaining 1 additional year of clinical anesthesiology training, consistently outperformed more senior residents who never received the intervention.Our training model for code-status training with anesthesiology residents showed significant gains. The best results were achieved when combining clinical experience with focused educational training.

Timing of do-not-resuscitate orders and health care utilization near the end of life in cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The objectives are to explore the prevalence of DNR orders, the factors influencing them, and the association between DNR signing and health care utilization among advanced cancer patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Data from cancer decedents in three hospitals in China from January 2016 to December 2017 during their last hospitalization before death were obtained from the electronic medical records system. RESULTS: In total, 427 cancer patients were included; 59.0% had a DNR order. Patients who had solid tumors, lived in urban areas, had more than one comorbidity, and had more than five symptoms were more likely to have DNR orders. The cut-off of the timing of obtaining a DNR order was 3 days, as determined by the median number of days from the signing of a DNR order to patient death. Patients with early DNR orders (more than 3 days before death) were less likely to be transferred to the intensive care unit and undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation, tracheal intubation, and ventilation, while they were more likely to be given morphine and psychological support compared with those with late (within 3 days before death) and no orders. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced cancer patients with solid tumors living in urban areas with more symptoms and comorbidities are relatively more likely to have DNR orders. Early DNR orders are associated with less aggressive procedures and more comfort measures. However, these orders are always signed late. Future studies are needed to better understand the timing of DNR orders.

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.

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.

Relationship between Patient Characteristics and the Timing of Provision of Explanation about DNAR to Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer.

Objective The aim of the present study was to analyze the relationship between the patient characteristics and the timing of provision of an explanation about "Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR)" by attending physicians to advanced lung cancer patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with advanced or postoperative recurrent lung cancer in whom systemic therapy was initiated between 2015 and 2016. Results The data of a total of 74 patients with lung cancer, including 59 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and 15 with small cell lung cancer were analyzed. The median overall survival of the patients was 10.0 months. Records of the explanation about DNAR by the physicians were available for 57 of the 74 (77.0%) patients. For 48 (64.9%) patients, the explanation was provided after the discontinuation of anticancer treatment, and for 9 (12.2%) patients, it was provided during the course of anticancer treatment. The provision of an explanation about DNAR during the course of treatment was associated with a poor performance status at the start of treatment (p=0.028), the tumor histology (p=0.037), the presence of driver gene mutation in the tumor (p=0.029), and shorter survival after the discontinuation of anticancer treatment (p<0.001). Conclusion The results suggested that the timing of provision of an explanation about DNAR was associated with patient characteristics and the predicted prognosis.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Preferences of People Receiving Dialysis.

Importance: Whether the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences of patients receiving dialysis align with their values and other aspects of end-of-life care is not known. Objective: To describe the CPR preferences of patients receiving dialysis and how these preferences are associated with their responses to questions about other aspects of end-of-life care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional survey study of a consecutive sample of patients receiving dialysis at 31 nonprofit dialysis facilities in 2 US metropolitan areas (Seattle, Washington, and Nashville, Tennessee) between April 22, 2015, and October 2, 2018. Analyses for this article were conducted between December 2018 and April 2020. Exposures: Participants were asked to respond to the question "If you had to decide right now, would you want CPR if your heart were to stop beating?" Those who indicated they would probably or definitely want CPR were categorized as preferring CPR. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study examined the association between preference for CPR and other treatment preferences, engagement in advance care planning, values, desired place of death, expectations about prognosis, symptoms, and palliative care needs. Results: Of the 1434 individuals invited to complete the survey, 1009 agreed to participate, and 876 were included in the analytic cohort (61.1%). The final cohort had a mean (SD) age of 62.6 (14.0) years; 492 (56.2%) were men, and 528 (60.3%) were White individuals. Among 738 of 876 participants (84.2%) who indicated that they would definitely or probably want CPR (CPR group), 555 (75.2%) wanted mechanical ventilation vs 13 of 138 (9.4%) of those who did not want CPR (do not resuscitate [DNR] group) (P < .001). A total of 249 of 738 participants (33.7%) in the CPR group vs 84 of 138 (60.9%) in the DNR group had documented treatment preferences (P < .001). In terms of values about future care, 171 participants (23.2%) in the CPR group vs 5 of 138 (3.6%) in the DNR group valued life prolongation (P < .001); 320 in the CPR group (43.4%) vs 109 of 138 in the DNR group (79.0%) valued comfort (P < .001); and 247 participants (33.5%) in the CPR group vs 24 of 138 (17.4%) in the DNR group were unsure about their wishes for future care (P < .001). In the CPR group, 207 (28.0%) had thought about stopping dialysis vs 62 of 138 (44.9%) in the DNR group (P < .001), and 181 (24.5%) vs 58 of 138 (42.0%) had discussed stopping dialysis (P = .001). No statistically significant associations were observed between CPR preference and documentation of a surrogate decision maker, thoughts or discussion of hospice, preferred place of death, expectations about prognosis, reported symptoms, or palliative care needs. Conclusions and Relevance: The CPR preferences of patients receiving dialysis were associated with some, but not all, other aspects of end-of-life care. How participants responded to questions about these other aspects of end-of-life care were not always aligned with their CPR preference. More work is needed to integrate discussions about code status with bigger picture conversations about patients' values, goals, and preferences for end-of-life care.

Defining palliative opportunities in pediatric patients with bone and soft tissue sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients with sarcomas experience significant morbidity and compromised quality of life throughout their course. These times could be viewed as opportunities for increased subspecialty palliative care (PC). Systematically defining opportunities for additional PC support has not occurred in pediatric oncology. The frequency, timing, and associated factors for palliative opportunities in pediatric patients with sarcomas are unknown. METHODS: A priori, nine palliative opportunities were defined (disease progression or relapse, admission for symptoms, social concerns or end-of-life, intensive care or bone marrow transplant admission, phase 1 trial or hospice enrollment, do-not-resuscitate status). A single-center retrospective review was conducted on patients aged 0-18 years with bone/soft tissue sarcomas who died from January 1, 2012 to November 30, 2017. Demographic, disease, and treatment data were collected. Descriptive statistics were performed. Opportunities were evaluated over quartiles from diagnosis to death. RESULTS: Patients (n = 60) had a mean of nine (SD = 4) palliative opportunities with the majority occurring in the last quartile of the disease course. Number and type of opportunities did not differ by demographics or diagnosis. Eighteen patients (30%) received PC consultation a median of 2.2 months (interquartile range [IQR] 11.5) prior to death. Consultation was unrelated to diagnosis or total opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sarcomas incur repeated events warranting subspecialty PC, which increase toward the end-of-life. Increased PC utilization may help decrease suffering and bolster family coping during these episodes. Additional work should further refine if opportunities differ across cancers, and how to incorporate this framework into clinical oncology care to prevent missed opportunities for PC.

An alternative approach to developing guidelines for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant.

Objectives To identify the probability of survival and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (sNDI) at which perinatal physicians would or would not offer or recommend resuscitation at birth for extremely preterm infants. Methods A Delphi process consisting of five rounds was implemented to seek consensus (>80% agreement) amongst British Columbia perinatal physicians. The first-round consisted of neonatal and maternal-fetal-medicine Focus Groups. Rounds two to five surveyed perinatal physicians, building upon previous rounds. Draft guidelines were developed and agreement sought. Results Based on 401 responses across all rounds, consensus was obtained that resuscitation should not be offered if survival probability <5%, not recommended if survival probability 5 to <10%, resuscitation recommended if survival without sNDI probability >70 to 90% and resuscitation standard care if survival without sNDI >90%. Conclusions This physician consensus-based, objective framework for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant is a transparent alternative to existing guidelines, minimizing gestational-ageism and allowing for individualized management utilizing up-to-date data. Further input from other key stakeholders will be required prior to guideline implementation.