BackgroundCode status discussion is associated with a decrease in invasive procedures among terminally ill cancer patients. We investigated the association between code status discussion on admission and incidence of invasive procedures, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and opioid use among inpatients with advanced stages of cancer and noncancer diseases.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study in a single center, Ito Municipal Hospital, Japan. Participants were patients who were admitted to the Department of Internal Medicine between October 1, 2013 and August 30, 2015, with advanced-stage cancer and noncancer. We collected demographic data and inquired the presence or absence of code status discussion within 24 hours of admission and whether invasive procedures, including central venous catheter placement, intubation with mechanical ventilation, and CPR for cardiac arrest, and opioid treatment were performed. We investigated the factors associated with CPR events by using multivariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsAmong the total 232 patients, code status was discussed with 115 patients on admission, of which 114 (99.1%) patients had do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. The code status was not discussed with the remaining 117 patients on admission, of which 69 (59%) patients had subsequent code status discussion with resultant DNR orders. Code status discussion on admission decreased the incidence of central venous catheter placement, intubation with mechanical ventilation, and CPR in both cancer and noncancer patients. It tended to increase the rate of opioid use. Code status discussion on admission was the only factor associated with the decreased use of CPR (P<0.001, odds ratio =0.03, 95% CI =0.004–0.21), which was found by using multivariate logistic regression analysis.ConclusionCode status discussion on admission is associated with a decrease in invasive procedures and CPR in cancer and noncancer patients. Physicians should be educated about code status discussion to improve end-of-life care.

Patron: HRH The Princess Royal 7-9 Breams BuildingsTel +44 (0)207 404 1999 London Fax +44 (0)207 067 1267 EC4A 1DT

A partial DNR made our respondents more willing to provide nonarrest procedures, but also CPR. These findings suggest an ongoing need to develop better means of incorporating patients' goals of care into orders that more faithfully guide care for both nonarrest and arrest situations.

BackgroundJapan has no official guidelines for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Therefore, we investigated the effect of DNR orders on physician decision making in relation to performing noncardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and CPR procedures.MethodsA case-scenario-based questionnaire that included a case of advanced cancer, a case of advanced dementia, and a case of nonadvanced heart failure was administered to physicians. The questions determined whether physicians would perform different non-CPR procedures and CPR procedures in the presence or absence of DNR orders. The number of non-CPR procedures each physician would perform and the number of physicians who would perform each non-CPR and CPR procedure in the absence and presence of DNR ocrders were compared. Physicians from three Japanese municipal acute care hospitals participated.ResultsWe analyzed 111 of 161 (69%) questionnaires. Physicians would perform significantly fewer non-CPR procedures in the presence of DNR orders than in the absence of DNR orders for all three case scenarios (median [interquartile range] percentages: Case 1: 72% [45%–90%] vs 100% [90%–100%]; Case 2: 55% [36%–72%] vs 91% [63%–100%]; Case 3: 78% [55%–88%] vs 100% [88%–100%]). Fewer physicians would perform non-CPR and CPR procedures in the presence of DNR orders than in the absence of DNR orders. However, considerable numbers of physicians would perform electric shock treatment for ventricular fibrillation in the presence of DNR orders (Case 1: 26%; Case 2: 16%; Case 3: 20%).ConclusionDNR orders affect physician decision making about performing non-CPR procedures. Although some physicians would perform CPR for ventricular fibrillation in the presence of DNR orders, others would not. Therefore, a consensus definition for DNR orders should be developed in Japan, otherwise DNR orders may cause harm.

BackgroundA do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is reportedly associated with a decrease in performance measures, but it should not be applied to noncardiopulmonary resuscitation procedures. Good performance measures are associated with improvement in heart failure outcomes.AimTo analyze the influence of DNR order on performance measures of heart failure at our hospital, where lectures on DNR order are held every 3 months.DesignRetrospective cohort study.MethodsThe medical report of patients with acute heart failure who were admitted between April 2013 and March 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. We collected demographic data, information on the presence or absence of DNR order within 24 hours of admission, and inhospital mortality. Performance measures of heart failure, including assessment of cardiac function and discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blocker for left ventricular systolic dysfunction and anticoagulant for atrial fibrillation, were collected and compared between groups with and without DNR orders.ResultsIn 394 total patients and 183 patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, 114 (30%) and 44 (24%) patients, respectively, had a DNR order. Patients with a DNR order had higher inhospital mortality. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the four quality measures (left ventricular function assessment, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, beta-blocker, and anticoagulant).ConclusionDNR orders did not affect performance measures, but they were associated with higher inhospital mortality among acute heart failure patients.