Choices of Seriously Ill Patients About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Correlates and Outcomes★★

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(97)89450-8Get rights and content

Purpose

For patients hospitalized with serious illnesses, we identified factors associated with a stated preference to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), examined physician-patient communication about these issues, and determined the relationship of patients' preferences to intensity of care and survival.

Patients and methods

The study was a crosssectional evaluation of patient preferences. The setting was five geographically diverse academic acute-care medical centers participating in the SUPPORT (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments) project. Study participants were hospitalized patients ≥18 years of age with 1 of 9 serious illnesses who were interviewed between days 3 and 6 after qualifying for the study. Using standardized interviews, patients provided information on demographics, preferences for CPR and other treatments, quality of life, functional status, perceptions of prognosis, and whether the patient had discussed CPR preferences with his or her physician. Data abstracted from the medical record included physiologic measures, therapeutic intensity, whether CPR was provided, and whether there was a do-not-resuscitate order. results: Of 1,955 eligible patients, 84% were interviewed (mean age 62 years, 58% men, inhospital mortality 7%, 6-month mortality 33%). Of the respondents, 28% did not want CPR. Factors associated independently with not wanting CPR included: hospital site; diagnosis; being older; being more functionally impaired; and patient perception of a worse prognosis. Only 29% of patients had discussed their preferences with their physician; 48% of those who did not want CPR reported such discussions. After adjusting for illness severity and factors associated with CPR preferences, patients not wanting CPR had lower intensity of care; similar inhosprtal mortality; and higher mortality at 2 and 6 months following study entry.

Conclusions

The diagnosis, patients' perception of the prognosis, and hospital site were significantly associated with patients' resuscitation preferences after adjusting for patient demographics, severity of illness, and functional status. The rate of discussing CPR was low even for patients who did not want CPR. Patient preferences not to receive CPR were associated with a small decrease in intensity of care but no difference in hospital survival.

References (38)

  • SolmanCJ et al.

    Evaluation of do not resuscitate orders at a community hospital

    Arch Intern Med.

    (1989)
  • LawrenceVA et al.

    Cancer, resuscitation. Does the diagnosis affect the decision?

    Arch Intern Med.

    (1987)
  • HansonLC et al.

    Use of life-sustaining care for the elderly

    J Am Geriatr Soc.

    (1991)
  • LynnJ et al.

    Background for SUPPORT

    J Clin Epidemiol.

    (1990)
  • PhillipsRS et al.

    Patient characteristics in SUPPORT: activity status and cognitive function

    J Clin Epidemiol.

    (1990)
  • KnausWA et al.

    The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults

    Chest

    (1991)
  • KeeneAR et al.

    Therapeutic intervention scoring system: update 1983

    Crit Care Med.

    (1983)
  • KnausWA et al.

    APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system

    Crit Care Med.

    (1985)
  • KnausWA et al.

    for the SUPPORT Investigators. The SUPPORT prognostic model: prediction of survival for seriously ill hospitalized adults

    Ann Intern Med.

    (1995)
  • Cited by (0)

    ★★

    Supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The opinions and findings contained in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or their Board of Trustees.

    View full text