ArticleThe Permanente journal2022
Code Status Blues: Do Legal Nudges Discourage Doctors From Ordering Do-Not-Resuscitate?
Article in The Permanente journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundLaws influence human behavior, including practitioners' behavior, and legal nudges may affect bedside patient care practices. Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) practices are one such example. Ensuring that practitioners order DNR for patients who request it is a crucial part of providing quality end-of-life care. On April 1, 2018, in the state of Texas, Senate Bill 11 (SB 11) took effect. This law did not make DNR orders illegal, but it constrained and complicated the process for issuing them. This study aimed to determine if DNR order utilization decreased after the law's implementation. MethodsThe authors conducted a retrospective cohort chart review of all adult patients admitted to a single academic urban tertiary care hospital in Texas before and after the state's DNR law went into effect. The authors reviewed code status orders for the 5426 sickest patients. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who had DNR orders in effect at the end of their hospitalizations. ResultsImplementation of the DNR law's cumbersome documentation and witnessing requirements correlated with a substantial decline in DNR orders for patients at the highest risk of dying from chronic or severe illness. ConclusionThis is the first study the authors know of that examines whether DNR usage declined after implementation of a DNR law. A troubling implication of this study is that the Texas law has had a chilling effect on doctors' willingness and ability to place medically and ethically appropriate DNR orders and has threatened the right of patients with serious illness to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.