Through blogs and comments, patients and experts explore what it takes to find good health care and make the most of it.

Pulling the Plug on DNR Orders

|

article image
Follow us on Facebook

Recently, a friend commented that she was not sure whether or not to agree to a "DNR order" for her 90-year-old mother. Her mother has dementia and lives in a nursing home; she is her mom's health care proxy. Complicating her decision was the knowledge that her mother had chosen a DNR status when she was cognitively intact, but then reversed her decision at the time of acute illness, believing that "DNR" meant she would not receive vigorous treatment for medical problems such as an infection or congestive heart failure. My friend told me she believed the purpose of a DNR order was to avoid a protracted, painful death and that DNR was synonymous with comfort care. 

The truth is that DNR means "do not perform CPR" – the "R" in DNR refers to resuscitation, which is shorthand for "cardiopulmonary resuscitation." CPR is a procedure intended to counteract a cardiac arrest – the sudden cessation of the heartbeat and of breathing. CPR involves administering electric shocks and, more often than not, providing artificial respiration, usually through a breathing machine (ventilator). In principle, DNR – or, as it should more properly be called since there is only a small chance that CPR will actually succeed in restoring cardiac function, DNAR (do not attempt resuscitation) – refers only to what will or will not be done if the heart stops beating and breathing ceases. It has no implication for any other form of treatment. But nearly 40 years after the first DNR orders were written in hospitals, confusion about their meaning persists.

It's not just patients and families who are confused: Physicians are confused as well. I just read Sheri Fink's book, Five Days at Memorial: Life and Death in a Storm-Ravaged Hospital, in which the triage decisions made during Hurricane Katrina included placing patients with a DNR order at the bottom of the evacuation list. Reportedly, physicians at Memorial thought that patients could have a DNR order only if they were terminally ill, which is false: A patient can elect a DNR order whenever the burdens of CPR are felt to outweigh the benefits, or if CPR is thought to be extremely unlikely to succeed – regardless of the underlying medical condition. When it looked as though not all of Memorial Hospital's patients were going to be evacuated, it was the DNR cases who were to be left behind, sedated so as to ease their allegedly inevitable and imminent deaths.

And it's not just in the midst of a disaster that physicians mistake "DNR" for "Do Not Treat." Study after study has shown that physicians say they would not administer a whole variety of treatments to patients who are DNR. One representative study of 241 physicians found that they were far less likely to agree to transfer a patient to the intensive care unit or even to perform simple tests such as drawing blood. 

Most recently, physicians and nurses caring for pediatric patients also told interviewers that in practice, DNR means far more than just "do not perform CPR." In this survey of 107 pediatricians and 159 pediatric nurses in a hospital setting, 67 percent believed a DNR order only applies to what to do after a cardiac arrest – but 33 percent said it implied other limitations. And 52 percent said that once a DNR order is in place, a whole host of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions should be withdrawn, over and beyond CPR, and a small but disturbing minority, six percent, said that a DNR order means that comfort measures only are to be provided. 

Why, so many years after the concept of DNR was introduced, does it remain so problematic? I think both patients and physicians implicitly recognize that asking about CPR is simply the wrong question – that's why they assume DNR refers to so much more than what doctors should do if the heart stops beating. The right question has to do with figuring out what it is that medical treatment is supposed to achieve. Is it prolonging life at any cost? Is it providing comfort and dignity? Or is it something in between, preserving those basic functions such as walking and talking and seeing and hearing that a person values most? Only after defining the overall goal of care does it make sense to focus on delineating the specific treatments that are most consistent with achieving those goals. 

An enormous amount of energy and ink have been squandered on debating about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, one of many possible medical treatments that seeks to achieve one of several possible medical goals. Maybe it's time to pull the plug on DNR orders, banning them unless there is first a conversation about the overall direction of medical care. 

One approach to doing exactly this is POLST, Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment or, as it is called in some states, Medical Orders for the Scope of Treatment. This is a medical order, just like an order a doctor writes in a hospital for antibiotics or for blood tests; it is not just a wish statement about future care. It includes a list of specific interventions that a prospective patient has agreed are undesirable under any circumstances, and often includes CPR along with other treatments such as dialysis or artificial nutrition. But before a physician and patient agree on such an order, a conversation is supposed to take place about the goals of medical care. The problem is that it's far from clear that patients and doctors are having those discussions. They may simply be jumping to the final step, writing that order. POLST is a promising development, but only if at least as much time is spent on talking about the big picture as on its implementation.

This post originally appeared on Muriel's blog, Life in the End Zone, on February 3, 2014.

More Blog Posts by Muriel Gillick

author bio

Dr. Muriel Gillick is a clinical professor in the Department of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Her scholarly interests are in medical ethics, care near the end of life, and health policy affecting older individuals. In addition to publishing articles in the medical literature on these topics, she has written four books for a general audience discussing ethical, medical, and policy issues arising in old age. Her most recent book is The Denial of Aging: Perpetual Youth, Eternal Life, and Other Dangerous Fantasies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). Dr. Gillick has a clinical practice with Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates providing palliative care consultation in the office, the home and several teaching hospitals, the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and the Brigham and Women's Hospital. Dr. Gillick carries out her scholarly work at the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, a health services research organization. Her blog is Life in the End Zone.


Tags for this article:
End-of-Life Planning   Plan for your End of Life Care   Aging Well   Inside Healthcare  


Comments on this post
Please note: CFAH reserves the right to moderate all comments posted to the Prepared Patient® Blog. Any inappropriate postings will be removed.


No comments have been entered yet.