Aligning patient values and code status: Choice of Diction's Effect (CODE) study

Author:

Kota Karthik J.1ORCID,Chen Catherine1ORCID,George Renu1ORCID,Nagengast Samantha2,Azab Andrew1,Bhalla Raman1,Dave Payal1,Ji Stephanie1ORCID,Lawrence Ibiyonu1ORCID,Naik Jay1ORCID,Noman Sofiul1,Parikh Payal1,Patel Manish1,Patel Sheetal1ORCID,Priest Stephen O.1ORCID,Prister James1,Schaer Daniel1,Theodorou Ross Christina1,Shah Rohan V.1,Duberstein Paul3ORCID,Steinberg Michael B.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School New Brunswick New Jersey USA

2. Palliative Medicine and Supportive Care Program Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey New Brunswick New Jersey USA

3. Department of Behavior, Society, and Policy Department of Psychiatry Rutgers‐School of Public Health New Brunswick New Jersey USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundDecisions regarding resuscitation after cardiac arrest are critical from ethical, patient satisfaction, outcome, and healthcare cost standpoints. Physician‐reported discussion barriers include topic discomfort, fear of time commitment, and difficulty articulating end‐of‐life concepts. The influence of language used in these discussions has not been tested. This study explored whether utilizing the alternate term “allow (a) natural death” changed code status decisions in hospitalized patients versus “do not resuscitate” (DNR).MethodsAll patients age 65 and over admitted to a general medicine hospital teaching service were screened (English‐speaking, not ICU‐level care, no active psychiatric illness, no substance misuse, no active DNR). Participants were randomized to resuscitation discussions with either DNR or “allow natural death” as the “no code” phrasing. Outcomes included patient resuscitation decision, satisfaction with and duration of the conversation, and decision correlation with illness severity and predicted resuscitation success.Results102 participants were randomized to the “allow natural death” (N = 49) or DNR (N = 53) arms. The overall “no code” rate for our sample of hospitalized general medicine inpatients age >65 was 16.7%, with 13% in the DNR and 20.4% in the “allow natural death” arms (p = 0.35). Discussion length was similar in the DNR and “allow natural death” arms (3.9 + 3.2 vs. 4.9 + 3.9 minutes), and not significantly different (p = 0.53). Over 90% of participants were highly satisfied with their code status decision, without difference between arms (p = 0.49).ConclusionsParticipants’ code status discussions did not differ in “no code” rate between “allow natural death” and DNR arms but were short in length and had high patient satisfaction. Previously reported code status discussion barriers were not encountered. It is appropriate to screen code status in all hospitalized patients regardless of phrasing used.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference10 articles.

1. Discussions of “code status” on a family practice teaching ward: what barriers do family physicians face?;Calam B;CMAJ,2000

2. Perspective: A Tale of Two Conversations

3. Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions

4. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3