Do not resuscitate (dnr)

Advance directives may vary by state, but all are designed to outline care preferences in the event one becomes incapacitated. Initiating a discussion and implementation of an advance directive should include patient care preference regarding code status or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Advance directives are legal documents but are not medical orders. Though many advance directives include preferences pertaining to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they are not equivalent to Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) or Do-Not-Intubate (DNI) orders. Furthermore, some directives clearly specify exactly what is wanted for a given situation, while others, as noted above, remain vague.

It is important to specifically illicit patient preference regarding DNR and DNI during an advance directive discussion. According to one study, it may be beneficial to start with two simple questions: “If you cannot or choose not to participate in health care decisions, with whom should we speak?" and "If you cannot or choose not to participate in the decision-making, what should we consider when making a decision about your care?” Though these questions may help initiate a dialogue, they do not specifically address patient care preferences regarding DNR and DNI, and further detailed discussions are needed. For select hospitalized patients without advance directives or DNR/DNI orders, physicians may find the discussion difficult but necessary. Unfortunately, there may exist a notion that do-not-resuscitate equates to do-not-treat. It is paramount that all parties involve understand do-not-resuscitate does not mean all treatments are discontinued and standard of care is not hindered by a DNR order. Gauging a patient’s or proxy’s understanding of the current condition and expectations can be a useful introduction to the discussion. The questions noted above can also be used to guide the physician but do not specifically address DNR or DNI preferences. Physicians educated in the skills necessary to have the discussions have led to an increase in patient preferences at end-of-life. Despite the evidence, however, junior physicians report little formal education regarding palliative or end-of-life issues and have cited hospital culture as a deterrent to engaging and learning more about the subject. Minimal training in end-of-life discussions and exposure to palliative care patients at the medical school level is another barrier to physician comfort in end-of-life care. Regardless, earlier and more complete discussions regarding a range of care preferences should be undertaken, and early involvement of a palliative care team may lead to better understanding of a DNR order. A multidisciplinary approach can further solidify the process by utilizing nursing and case management resources. Once patient care preferences are decided, an order in the form of a legal document is added to the medical record. It is important to note that different hospitals and States may use different documents to indicate DNR and DNI orders and include: Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST), Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST), Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) and Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST). Unlike an advance directive, patient wishes including DNR and DNI preferences are conveyed as a medical order on a MOLST or POLST form.

Particularly in the office setting, there remain barriers to completing and implementing advance directives that are often physician and patient related. Physicians have sited discomfort with the topic and limitations on time and reimbursement as reasons to forgo the discussion. Patients identify fear, lack of knowledge, and cultural traditions as deterrents. Sadly, a common reason identified by both physicians and patients is waiting for the other party to initiate the discussion. Even when advance directives are made, there may still be barriers to implementation including vague language, proxy issues, and accessibility of the advanced directive. Physicians should encourage patients to avoid vague terminology and be explicit in care preferences and procedures. Including the health care proxy in the advance directive discussions ensures that the proxy is aware of the patient’s wishes and can further clarify any vague language or questions regarding patient care preferences. Finally, advance directives should be part of the medical record and readily available to the physician, proxy, and requested family members. Given the challenges cited, several studies have identified interventions that may increase advance directive completion rates. The most successful interventions are interactive and include repeated conversations over time. Group-based interventions that stimulate discussion and generate additional questions also have been successful. Several studies have produced good recommendations including a protocol-driven negotiation on goals of care. This protocol includes identifying the proper setting, assessing patient and proxy’s understanding and expectations and suggesting more realistic goals. Another approach for primary care physicians to utilize when initiating the discussion has been proposed. This approach can occur at multiple stages and involves interactive advance directive discussions. The stage to initiate the discussion is during a routine exam. There is no defined age to initiate the discussion, but it is generally recommended in patients 50 to 65 years of age. Advance directives should be reintroduced at the diagnosis of a progressive chronic disease and again following concern of increased frailty or dependence. Higher completion rates have been seen with mailing the forms to the patient prior to the initial discussion. These approaches can be used together or in isolation as there is no set guidelines on end-of-life issues and DNR discussions.

The intent of StatPearls is to provide practice questions and explanations to assist you in identifying and resolving knowledge deficits. These questions and explanations are not intended to be a source of the knowledge base of all of medicine, nor is it intended to be a board or certification review of Geriatrics. The authors or editors do not warrant the information is complete or accurate. The reader is encouraged to verify each answer and explanation in several references. All drug indications and dosages should be verified before administration.

StatPearls offers the most comprehensive database of free multiple-choice questions with explanations and short review chapters ever developed. This system helps physicians, medical students, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals identify education deficits and learn new concepts. StatPearls is not a board or certification review system for Geriatrics, it is a learning system that you can use to help improve your knowledge base of medicine for life-long learning. StatPearls will help you identify your weaknesses so that when you are ready to study for a board or certification exam in Geriatrics, you will already be prepared.

Our content is updated continuously through a multi-step peer review process that will help you be prepared and review for a thorough knowledge of Geriatrics. When it is time for the Geriatrics board and certification exam, you will already be ready. Besides online study quizzes, we also publish our peer-reviewed content in eBooks and mobile Apps. We also offer inexpensive CME/CE, so our content can be used to attain education credits while you study Geriatrics.