Dataset Information

Association of Communication Interventions to Discuss Code Status With Patient Decisions for Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Whether specific communication interventions to discuss code status alter patient decisions regarding do-not-resuscitate code status and knowledge about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remains unclear.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the association of communication interventions with patient decisions and knowledge about CPR.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were systematically searched from the inception of each database to November 19, 2018.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials focusing on interventions to facilitate code status discussions. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model, and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs are reported.

Data extraction and synthesis

The study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was patient preference for CPR, and the key secondary outcome was patient knowledge regarding life-sustaining treatment.

Results

Fifteen randomized clinical trials (2405 patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis, 11 trials (1463 patients) were included for the quantitative synthesis of the primary end point, and 5 trials (652 patients) were included for the secondary end point. Communication interventions were significantly associated with a lower preference for CPR (390 of 727 [53.6%] vs 284 of 736 [38.6%]; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78). In a preplanned subgroup analysis, studies using resuscitation videos as decision aids compared with other interventions showed a stronger decrease in preference for life-sustaining treatment (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64 vs 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.22; between-group heterogeneity P < .001). Also, a significant association was found between communication interventions and better patient knowledge (standardized mean difference, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.71).

Conclusions and relevance

Communication interventions are associated with patient decisions regarding do-not-resuscitate code status and better patient knowledge and may thus improve code status discussions.

SUBMITTER: Becker C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563579 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders has increased but many are placed late in the dying process. This study is to determine the association between the timing of DNR order placement in the intensive care unit (ICU) and nurses' perceptions of patients' distress and quality of death. METHODS:200 ICU patients and the nurses (n = 83) who took care of them during their last week of life were enrolled from the medical ICU and cardiac care unit of New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine in Manhattan and the surgical ICU at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Nurses were interviewed about their perceptions of the patients' quality of death using validated measures. Patients were divided into 3 groups-no DNR, early DNR, late DNR placement during the patient's final ICU stay. Logistic regression analyses modeled perceived patient quality of life as a function of timing of DNR order placement. Patient's comorbidities, length of ICU stay, and procedures were also included in the model. RESULTS:59 patients (29.5%) had a DNR placed within 48 hours of ICU admission (early DNR), 110 (55%) placed after 48 hours of ICU admission (late DNR), and 31 (15.5%) had no DNR order placed. Compared to patients without DNR orders, those with an early but not late DNR order placement had significantly fewer non-beneficial procedures and lower odds of being rated by nurses as not being at peace (Adjusted Odds Ratio namely AOR = 0.30; [CI = 0.09-0.94]), and experiencing worst possible death (AOR = 0.31; [CI = 0.1-0.94]) before controlling for procedures; and consistent significance in severe suffering (AOR = 0.34; [CI = 0.12-0.96]), and experiencing a severe loss of dignity (AOR = 0.33; [CI = 0.12-0.94]), controlling for non-beneficial procedures. CONCLUSIONS:Placement of DNR orders within the first 48 hours of the terminal ICU admission was associated with fewer non-beneficial procedures and less perceived suffering and loss of dignity, lower odds of being not at peace and of having the worst possible death.

Project description:Although do-not-resuscitate orders only prohibit cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the case of cardiac arrest, the common initiation of this code status in the context of end-of-life care may lead providers to draw premature conclusions about other goals of care. The aim of this study is to identify concerns regarding care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate orders within the Department of Defense and compare differences in perceptions between members of the critical care team.DesignA cross sectional observational study was conducted.SettingThis study took place in the setting of critical care within the Department of Defense.SubjectsAll members of the Uniformed Services Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine were invited to participate.InterventionsA validated 31-question survey exploring the perceptions of care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate status was distributed.Measurements and main resultsExploratory factor analysis was used to categorically group survey questions, and average factor scores were compared between respondent groups using t tests. Responses to individual questions were also analyzed between comparison groups using Fisher exact tests. Factor analysis revealed no significant differences between respondents of different training backgrounds; however, those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to agree that active treatment would be pursued (p = 0.024) and that trust and communication would be maintained (p = 0.005). Although 38% of all respondents worry that quality of care will decrease, 93% agree that life-prolonging treatments should be offered. About a third of providers wrongly believed that a do-not-resuscitate order must be reversed prior to an operation.ConclusionsAlthough providers across training backgrounds held similar concerns about decreased care quality in the ICU, there is wide belief that the routine and noninvasive interventions are offered as indicated. Those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to believe that standards of care continued to be met after code status change.