Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30462673›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Perspectives on the DNR decision process: A survey of nurses and physicians in hematology and oncology.

Mona Pettersson, Anna T Höglund, Mariann Hedström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Investigating Key Factors Related to the Decision of a Do-Not-Resuscitate Consent.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. The Effect of Practice toward Do-Not-Resuscitate among Taiwanese Nursing Staff Using Path Modeling.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mona PetterssonDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3294-081X
Anna T HöglundDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mariann HedströmDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6296-0160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn cancer care, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions are made frequently; i.e., decisions not to start the heart in the event of a cardiac arrest. A DNR decision can be a complex process involving nurses and physicians with a wide variety of experiences and perspectives. Previous studies have shown different perceptions of the DNR decision process among nurses and physicians, e.g. concerning patient involvement and information. DNR decisions have also been reported to be unclear and documentation inconsistent.

objectiveThe aim was to investigate how important and how likely to happen nurses and physicians considered various aspects of the DNR decision process, regarding participation, information and documentation, as well as which attributes they found most important in relation to DNR decisions.

methodsA descriptive correlational study using a web survey was conducted, including 132 nurses and 84 physicians working in hematology and oncology.

resultsAlmost half of the respondents reported it not likely that the patient would be involved in the decision on DNR, and 21% found it unimportant to inform patients of the DNR decision. Further, 57% reported that providing information to the patient was important, but only 21% stated that this was likely to happen. There were differences between nurses and physicians, especially regarding participation by and information to patients and relatives. The attributes deemed most important for both nurses and physicians pertained more to medical viewpoints than to ethical values, but a difference was found, as nurses chose patient autonomy as the most important value, while physicians rated non-maleficence as the most important value in relation to DNR decisions.

conclusionNurses and physicians need to be able to talk openly about their different perspectives on DNR decisions, so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the decisions, especially in cases where they disagree. They should also be aware that what they think is important is not always likely to happen. The organization needs to support such discussions through providing an environment that allows ethical discussions on regular basis. Patients and relatives will also benefit from receiving the same information from all caregivers.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingAdultAgedDocumentationFamilyFemaleHealth CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHematologyHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNursesPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID30462673
PMCPMC6248939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.