ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Characterizing Physician Recommendations within Code Status Documentation: A Multicentre Cohort Study and Qualitative Discourse Analysis.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- The Challenges of Prognosticating Persistent Critical Illness: A Qualitative Study.CHEST critical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiscussion of patients' treatment preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is routine practice for adults admitted to hospital. Ideally, these "code status discussions" provide an opportunity to ensure patients receive care that is concordant with their values and priorities. The degree of physician recommendations that occur during these discussions is unknown.
objectiveThis study sought to characterize physician treatment recommendations during code status discussions in older hospitalized medical patients. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND APPROACH: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 200 patients, 75 years or older, admitted to the general medical service in one of four hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Medical records were reviewed to abstract documentation by physicians that referenced a code status discussion. We used qualitative discourse analysis to characterize the nature of these documented code status discussions, with a focus on physician treatment recommendations. KEY
resultsThe majority of recommendations involved de-escalation or avoidance of invasive treatments. The strength of recommendations ranged from a passive physician role of providing advice, where the ultimate decision was deferred to the patient/surrogate, to an active role of explicitly not offering interventions, which involved informed non-dissent. Physicians often documented a brief rationale for specific recommendations, either focused on their estimation that the patient had a poor prognosis or their interpretation of the patient's goals and priorities. However, there was a paucity of documentation supporting how physicians determined these interpretations. Some physicians used the term "quality of life" to imply that invasive life-sustaining treatments were unlikely to benefit the patient.
conclusionsWe uncovered a range of physician practices in providing recommendations during code status discussions. While the strength and rationale varied, physicians often failed to document patients' goals and priorities when making treatment recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to improve how physicians formulate, communicate, and document their recommendations around code status.
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.