Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A prospective trial of a new policy eliminating signed consent for do not resuscitate orders

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some institutions require patients and families to give signed consent for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, especially in New York State. As this may be a barrier to discussions about DNR orders, we changed a signed consent policy to a witnessed verbal consent policy, simplified and modified the DNR order forms, and educated the staff at 1 hospital, comparing the effects with an affiliated hospital where the policy was not changed.

DESIGN: Prospective natural experiment with intervention and comparison sites.

SUBJECTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Pre- and postintervention, we surveyed house officers’ confidence and attitudes, reviewed charts to assess the number of concurrent care concerns (CCCs) addressed per DNR order (e.g., limits on intubation or blood products or need for hospice), and at the intervention hospital, measured the stress levels of surrogates consenting for DNR orders using the Horowitz Impact of Event Scale. We also surveyed staff perceptions about the policy following the change.

RESULTS: At the intervention hospital, the percentage of house officers reporting low confidence in their ability to obtain consent for DNR orders declined postintervention (24% to 7%,P=.002), while there was no significant change at the comparison hospital (20% vs 15%,P=.45). Among intervention hospital house officers, there were declines in percent reporting difficulty talking to patients and families about DNR orders, but no significant changes at the comparison hospital. At the intervention hospital, the mean number of CCCs/DNR order increased (1.0 pre to 4.2 post,P<.001), but did not change significantly (1.2 pre to 1.4 post) at the comparison hospital. The mean total stress score for intervention hospital surrogates declined postintervention (23.6 to 17.3,P=.02), indicating lower stress. House officers (98%), attendings (59%), and nurses (79%) thought the new policy was better for families.

CONCLUSIONS: The policy change was well received and associated with improved house officer attitudes, more attention to patients’ concurrent care concerns, and decreased surrogate stress. The results suggest that DNR orders can be made simpler and clearer, and raise questions about policies requiring signed consent for DNR orders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Youngner S. Do-not-resuscitate orders: no longer secret, but still a problem. Hastings Center Rep. 1987;17:24–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Paris BE, Carrion VG, Meditch JS Jr.,Capello CF, Mulvihill MN. Roadblocks to do-not-resuscitate orders. A study in policy implementation. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:1689–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Burns JP, Edwards J, Johnson J, Cassem NH, Truog RD. Do-not-resuscitate order after 25 years. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:1543–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sulmasy DP, Geller G, Faden R, Levine DM. The quality of mercy. Caring for patients with ‘do not resuscitate’ orders. JAMA. 1992;267:682–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Toole EE, Youngner SJ, Juknialis BW, Daly B, Bartlett ET, Landefeld CS. Evaluation of a treatment limitation policy with a specific treatment-limiting order page. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:425–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Heffner JE, Barbieri C, Casey K. Procedure specific do-not-resuscitate orders: effect on communication of treatment limitations. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:793–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tolle SW, Tilden VP, Nelson CA, Dunn PM. A prospective study of the efficacy of the physician order form for life-sustaining treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46:1097–102.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sulmasy DP, Sood JR, Ury WA. The quality of care plans for patients with do-not-resuscitate orders. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1573–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Handy CM, Sulmasy DP, Merkel CK, Ury WA. The experience of signing a do not resuscitate order as a surrogate: a phenomenological study. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(suppl 1):244.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jezewski MA, Finnell DS. The meaning of DNR status: oncology nurses’ experiences with patients and families. Cancer Nurs. 1998;21:212–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Baker R, Strosberg MA, Schmee J, et al. The 1988 DNR reforms: a comparative study of the impact of the New York DNR Law and the JCAHO accreditation requirements. In: Baker R, Strosberg MA, eds. Legislating Medical Ethics: A Study of the New York State Do-Not-Resuscitate Law. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press; 1995:263–301.

    Google Scholar 

  12. N.Y. Pub. Health Law, Art. 29-B, 2960-2979.

  13. Strosberg MA. The New York state do-not-resuscitate law: a study of public policy making. In: Baker R, Strosberg MA, eds. Legislating Medical Ethics: A Study of the New York State Do-Not-Resuscitate Law. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press; 1995:9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jezewski MA, Scherer Y, Miller C, Battista E. Consenting to DNR: critical care nurses’ interactions with patients and family members. Am J Crit Care. 1993;2:202–309.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jobe JB, Mingay DJ. Cognitive research improves questionnaires. Am J Public Health. 1989;79:1053–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:229–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sulmasy DP, Marx ES, Dwyer M. Do the ward notes reflect the quality of end-of-life care? J Med Ethics. 1996;22:344–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sulmasy DP, Geller G, Levine DM, Faden R. The quality of mercy: caring for patients with do not resuscitate orders. JAMA. 1992;267:682–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sulmasy DP, Marx ES. A computerized system for entering orders to limit treatment: implementation and evaluation. J Clin Ethics. 1997;8:258–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sulmasy DP, Sood JR. Factors associated with the time nurses spend at the bedsides of seriously ill patients with poor prognoses. Med Care. 2003;41:458–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Knauss WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system: risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized patients. Chest. 1991;100:1619–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tennen H, Herzberger S. Impact of event scale. Test Critiques. 1985;3:358–66.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mavis B. Self-efficacy and OSCE performance among second year medical students. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2001;6:93–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Nelson CA, Fields J. Family decision-making to withdraw life-sustaining treatments from hospitalized patients. Nurs Res. 2001;50:105–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Oklahoma Do Not Resuscitate Act. 63 Okl. St. § 3131.5 (2005).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Manhattan, NY, USA

    Daniel P. Sulmasy OFM, MD, PhD, Jennifer McGugins MD & Wayne A. Ury MD

  2. Bioethics Institute of New York Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Daniel P. Sulmasy OFM, MD, PhD & Wayne A. Ury MD

  3. St. Vincent’s Hospital—Staten Island, New York, NY, USA

    Ruth L. McAuley RN, PhD

  4. The John J. Conley Department of Ethics, Saint Vincent’s Hospital Manhattan, 153 W. 11th Street, 10011, New York, NY

    Daniel P. Sulmasy OFM, MD, PhD, Johanna R. Sood PhD, Kenneth Texiera MA & Wayne A. Ury MD

Authors
  1. Daniel P. Sulmasy OFM, MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna R. Sood PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth Texiera MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ruth L. McAuley RN, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jennifer McGugins MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wayne A. Ury MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel P. Sulmasy OFM, MD, PhD.

Additional information

No conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sulmasy, D.P., Sood, J.R., Texiera, K. et al. A prospective trial of a new policy eliminating signed consent for do not resuscitate orders. J GEN INTERN MED 21, 1261–1268 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00612.x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00612.x

Key words

Search

Navigation