ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2000
CPR or DNR? End-of-life decision making on a family practice teaching ward.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- If Your Heart Were to Stop: Characterization and Comparison of Code Status Orders in Adult Patients Admitted with COVID-19.Journal of palliative medicine · 2022Article
- Advance care planning: challenges at the emergency department of a cancer care center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Article
- Insights into Chinese perspectives on do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders from an examination of DNR order form completeness for cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013Article
- Discussions of "code status" on a family practice teaching ward: what barriers do family physicians face?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the proportion of patients on a family practice ward who had "code status" orders and end-of-life discussions documented on their charts in the first week of admission. To examine the correlation between a tool predicting the likelihood of benefit from cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and actual end-of-life decisions made by family physicians and their patients.
designCross-sectional descriptive study using a retrospective chart review.
settingA 14-bed teaching ward where family physicians admit and manage their own patients in an urban tertiary care teaching hospital.
participantsPatients admitted to the ward for 7 or more days between December 1, 1995, and August 31, 1996.
main outcome measuresFrequency of documented "do not resuscitate" (DNR) or "full code" orders and documented end-of-life discussions. Prognosis-after-resuscitation (PAR) score.
resultsIn the 103 charts reviewed, code status orders were entered within 7 days for 60 patients (58%); 31 were DNR, and 29 were full code. Discussion of code status was documented in 25% of charts. The PAR score for 40% of patients was higher than 5, indicating they were unlikely to survive to discharge from hospital should they require CPR. There was a significant association between PAR scores done retrospectively and actual code status decisions made by attending family physicians (P < .005).
conclusionsEnd-of-life discussions and decisions were not fully documented in patients' charts, even though patients were being cared for in hospital by their family physicians. A PAR score obtained during the first week of admission could assist physicians in discussing end-of-life orders with their patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10690490PMC1987695What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.