Skip to main content

Hospital DNR Orders - WTF (Why They Failed)


A thought provoking article just came out ahead of print in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. It is titled "Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: Why They Have Failed and How to Fix Them" and authored by Jackie Yuen, Carrington Reid, and Michael D. Fetters (a quick disclosure – I'm unbelievably excited that Jackie is coming to our UCSF Geriatrics Fellowship next year – we need more bright minds like her in our field). The paper lays out four main failures of DNR orders and four possible solutions.

Let's start with the least controversial part of the paper - the four failures of DNR orders. To sum it up – discussions rarely occur, and when they do occur it happens much too late with doctors not really giving enough information for patients to make a true informed decision. Worst of all, physicians make unfounded assumptions based on the presence of a DNR order that may limit other treatments (please see my rant on AND orders for issues around extrapolation and assumptions around end-of-life orders).

The solutions proposed by Dr. Yuen and her colleagues are a little bit more controversial than the failures, but overall are pretty spot on.

The authors first recommend promoting a culture change in hospital to improve patient-centered end-of-life care. This recommendation is meant to address our current culture that praises technology and interventions. I completely agree with the authors, although I would like to see more specifics on what hospitals can do, as culture change is no small feat (damn you journal word limits!)

The second recommendation addresses inadequate hospital policies that fail to set standards for DNR discussions. The authors recommend new Joint Commission standards for DNR discussions and a requirement that institutions demonstrate compliance with these standards in order to be accredited. The standards used in the article include making the 'Attending physician' responsible for leading DNR discussions with appropriate patients or their surrogates within 72 hours of hospitalization (and with change in clinical condition). I find this standard fascinating and a little concerning. It’s fascinating as I’m guessing attending’s rarely have these conversations in most academic hospitals. It’s concerning as I am not sure if attending physicians would be any better at it than junior physicians who probably have a greater amount of training in communication skills.

The last two recommendations include establishing formal communication skills training programs in goals of care and DNR discussions, and payment reform that no longer rewards volume and intensity of care, but rather uses financial incentives that use patient satisfaction and/or the quality of DNR discussions as performance measures. I again, couldn’t agree more.

There are aspects of hospital DNRs that are not addressed by the authors. The main recommendation that I think is missing is one addressing the complete lack of portability of most DNR orders outside that of the POLST paradigm. For example, nursing home residents may have a DNR in the nursing home, but the second EMS picks them up to go to the hospital, these very same residents become full code again. Same thing happens when that patient who is DNR in the hospital gets admitted to the nursing home. Hospitals and policy makers cannot think of illness as confined to discrete time periods. Hospitals no longer 'fix' people. Rather, people continue to live with chronic, progressive, and advanced illnesses even after hospital discharge. I would encourage any future reform to look at this issue from a much larger community approach than just focusing on the hospital setting.

This is a small point though in a much larger and well written article that I would encourage everyone to read.


by: Eric Widera

Comments

Anonymous said…
Great article Jackie!

Joe A.
John said…
In Ohio DNR orders are portable. . . IF the paperwork accompanies the patinet, and everyone reads it. There is a state-legeslated "pink-armband" to notify all caregivers of the DNR, but they are rarely used. Somethig about patient dignity is cited.

John Bohlen, MD
Florida is working it's own POLST--but we've had DNRO for several years which is an over-riding DNR order that is to be honored no matter where the patient is.
But, like the above post, it has to be with them. I repeatedly see Nursing Home patients arrive at my hospital without the order. Even was told once that it was locked in the Nursing Director's office & they couldn't get it until Monday (on a Saturday night)!
Like everything we do--Education of the public and Clinicians is the Key to success...
Anonymous said…
An advance directive follows a patient where ever they go--home, hospital nursing home. An advance directive states "when the time comes I can no longer make my own decisions", or "if my physician determines I am terminal"
A DNR order is encounter or
admission specific and must be signed by the physician. It is good only for that admission. If you are removing a patient from a nursing home to be treated at a hospital it would stand to reason that the condition is treatable and the patient is not a DNR. After the patient has been admitted to the hospital if the condition is not treatable THEN you would have a DNR signed. Most people with advance directives want to be treated until it is determined that they will not recover from a specific event even if they are 80 years old.

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Does “compassionate deception” have a place in palliative care?

by: Olivia Gamboa (@Liv_g_g)

There is broad consensus in the medical community that lying to patients is unethical.  However, in the care of patients with dementia, the moral clarity of this approach blurs.  In her recent New Yorker article, “The Memory House,”  Larissa MacFarquhar provides an excellent portrait of the common devices of artifice, omission and outright deception that are frequently deployed in the care of patients with dementia.  She furthermore explores the historical and ethical underpinnings of the various approaches used in disclosing (or not) information to patients living with dementia.

Ms. MacFarquhar introduces the idea of “compassionate deception,” or the concept that withholding truths, or even promoting outright falsehoods, is a reasonable and even ethical choice for those caring for patients with dementia.  To the extent that it helps a person with dementia feel happier and calmer, allowing them to believe in a gentler reality (one in which, say, their spo…