• S Einav, A Avidan, M Brezis, and A Rubinow.
• Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
• Med Law. 2006 Mar 1; 25 (1): 219-28.

AbstractWhen the desires of a patient are unknown or cannot be ascertained, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the default procedure. Explicit, Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), orders are required to prevent implementation of CPR. We studied the response of general medical internists in specific clinical situations demanding consideration of DNR orders and respect for patient preferences; their current practice regarding slow codes and participation in CPR attempts considered futile provide information as to how often they discuss DNR issues with patients or families. Eighty-five internists attending the monthly meeting of the Internal Medicine Forum participated in the study. The physicians demonstrated their consent to participate by accepting a remote transmitter that elicited a response 2-3 minutes following the presentation of case vignettes or practice-related questions. The survey showed that 73% of the physicians agreed to assign a DNR order for a terminally ill patient unable to express her preferences. Only 55% agreed to do the same for a competent patient who specifically requested that CPR be withheld in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest (p<0.05). 77% reported to have performed CPR, at least three times, in situations where they expected no benefit. 59% affirmed that their team had performed a partial CPR (slow code) at least once. Only 28% discussed the subject of DNR with patients or family more than 5 times a year. Paternalism, disregard for patients' preferences and poor communication skills influence normative behaviour in end-of-life decision-making.

4 keywords...

hide…