File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Hospital do-not-resuscitate orders: Why they have failed and how to fix them

TitleHospital do-not-resuscitate orders: Why they have failed and how to fix them
Authors
KeywordsEnd-of-life care
Kwd do-not-resuscitate orders
Informed consent
Issue Date2011
Citation
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2011, v. 26, n. 7, p. 791-797 How to Cite?
AbstractDo-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders have been in use in hospitals nationwide for over 20 years. Nonetheless, as currently implemented, they fail to adequately fulfill their two intended purposes-to support patient autonomy and to prevent non-beneficial interventions. These failures lead to serious consequences. Patients are deprived of the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding resuscitation, and CPR is performed on patients who would have wanted it withheld or are harmed by the procedure. This article highlights the persistent problems with today's use of inpatient DNR orders, i.e., DNR discussions do not occur frequently enough and occur too late in the course of patients' illnesses to allow their participation in resuscitation decisions. Furthermore, many physicians fail to provide adequate information to allow patients or surrogates to make informed decisions and inappropriately extrapolate DNR orders to limit other treatments. Because these failings are primarily due to systemic factors that result in deficient physician behaviors, we propose strategies to target these factors including changing the hospital culture, reforming hospital policies on DNR discussions, mandating provider communication skills training, and using financial incentives. These strategies could help overcome existing barriers to proper DNR discussions and align the use of DNR orders closer to their intended purposes of supporting patient selfdetermination and avoiding non-beneficial interventions at the end of life. © Society of General Internal Medicine 2011.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/266922
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.3
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.732
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYuen, Jacqueline K.-
dc.contributor.authorReid, M. Carrington-
dc.contributor.authorFetters, Michael D.-
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-31T07:19:59Z-
dc.date.available2019-01-31T07:19:59Z-
dc.date.issued2011-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2011, v. 26, n. 7, p. 791-797-
dc.identifier.issn0884-8734-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/266922-
dc.description.abstractDo-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders have been in use in hospitals nationwide for over 20 years. Nonetheless, as currently implemented, they fail to adequately fulfill their two intended purposes-to support patient autonomy and to prevent non-beneficial interventions. These failures lead to serious consequences. Patients are deprived of the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding resuscitation, and CPR is performed on patients who would have wanted it withheld or are harmed by the procedure. This article highlights the persistent problems with today's use of inpatient DNR orders, i.e., DNR discussions do not occur frequently enough and occur too late in the course of patients' illnesses to allow their participation in resuscitation decisions. Furthermore, many physicians fail to provide adequate information to allow patients or surrogates to make informed decisions and inappropriately extrapolate DNR orders to limit other treatments. Because these failings are primarily due to systemic factors that result in deficient physician behaviors, we propose strategies to target these factors including changing the hospital culture, reforming hospital policies on DNR discussions, mandating provider communication skills training, and using financial incentives. These strategies could help overcome existing barriers to proper DNR discussions and align the use of DNR orders closer to their intended purposes of supporting patient selfdetermination and avoiding non-beneficial interventions at the end of life. © Society of General Internal Medicine 2011.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of General Internal Medicine-
dc.subjectEnd-of-life care-
dc.subjectKwd do-not-resuscitate orders-
dc.subjectInformed consent-
dc.titleHospital do-not-resuscitate orders: Why they have failed and how to fix them-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11606-011-1632-x-
dc.identifier.pmid21286839-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-80051551078-
dc.identifier.volume26-
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.spage791-
dc.identifier.epage797-
dc.identifier.eissn1525-1497-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000291701200021-
dc.identifier.issnl0884-8734-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats