Comparison of Life-Sustaining Treatment in Terminal Cancer Patients between a Cancer and Hospice Unit after Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the differences in the performance of life-sustaining treatment after signing a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order between terminal cancer patients who died in the cancer unit and hospice unit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 174 patients who died in the cancer unit (CU) and 68 patients who died in the hospice unit (HU) from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 at a hospital specializing in cancer treatment. RESULTS: The rate of life-sustaining treatment administration was lower for patients who died in the HU than that of those who died in the CU. The period until death after signing a DNR order was 7 days for CU patients and 19.5 days for the HU patients. The period from admission to death was also significantly longer in HU patients (32.5 days) than that in CU patients (21.5 days, p < .001). Of the patients who died in the CU, 54% were referred to the HU but did not use the service. Most of the people who signed DNR informed consents were spouses and offspring; only 4.6% of patients signed DNRs. CONCLUSION: It is hard to say that life-sustaining treatment increases the survival period, but it can improve symptom control and quality of life in hospices. Activation of consultation-based hospice is necessary for patients who cannot use the hospice unit. To increase patient's active participation in the life-sustaining treatment decision of terminal cancer patients, it is necessary that an advanced practice nurse specialized in counseling and education is involved in the decision.

Life-sustaining treatment and palliative care in patients with liver cirrhosis - legal, ethical, and practical issues

With the enactment of the ‘Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients in Hospice and Palliative Care or at the End of Life’ (Act No. 14013) in Korea, there is growing concern about the practicality of this law. In this review, we discuss definitions, ethics, and practical issues related to this law.

The End-of-Life Care in the Intensive Care Unit / 대한구급학회지

The intensive care units (ICUs) provide the best possible medical care to help critically ill patients survive acute threats to their lives. At the same time, the ICU is also the most common place to die. Thus the ICU clinicians should be competent in all aspects for end-of-life (EOL) care. The quality of EOL care in Korean ICUs do not ensure ICU patient's autonomy and dignity at their end-of-life. For examples, several studies present that do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are only initiated when the patient's death in imminent. To improve understanding EOL care of terminally ill patients, we summarize 'Recommendations for EOL care in the ICU by the American College of Critical Care Medicine' and 'Consensus guidelines to withdrawing life-sustaining therapies endorsed by Korean Academy of Medical Science'. EOL care will be emerging as a comprehensive area of expertise in Korean ICUs. The ICU clinicians must strive to find the barriers for EOL care in the ICU and develop their processes to improve the care of EOL.

Orden de no reanimar, consideraciones sobre este problema / Don not resuscitate order: some considerations about this problem

El artículo define aspectos y significados clínicos y éticos sobre Paro Cardiorrespiratorio (PCR), Maniobras de Reanimación Cardiopulmonar y Orden de No resucitación Cardiopulmonar (No-RCP). Enfatiza la diferencia entre el cese de la función cardiorrespiratoria por muerte natural (p.ej. por enfermedad crónica irreversible), distinguiéndolo de el PCR súbito, reversible. Se examinan estas situaciones a la luz de los “Fines de la Medicina” (Hastings Center, 1996).Se analizan los principales problemas, comenzando por las dificultades según los diferentes escenarios (servicio de urgencia, pabellón de maternidad, sala de hospitalizados, unidad de intensivo, pabellones quirúrgicos); se analiza la incertidumbre sobre el pronóstico de cada pacientes y sobre quién(es) deben tomar las decisiones sobre el fin de la vida. Idealmente debe ser el paciente autónomo quien tome la decisión, pero en otros casos se requieren alternativas, una de ellas es la Orden Unilateral. Otros problemas son la Validez de las órdenes de no-RCP en los diferentes tiempos evolutivos, el problema de la Futilidad y la Validez de las “Directivas Anticipadas”, en este grupo resalta el enfoque POLST (Physician’s Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) como más comprehensivo; como complemento ha surgido también el concepto AND (Allow Natural Death), que podría estar destinado a remplazar la orden de no-RCP (DNR).

This article examines the ethical and clinical significance of Cardiopulmonary Arrest, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation maneuvers and Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNR). It emphasizes Cardiopulmonary Arrest, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation maneuvers and Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNR). It emphasizes the difference between the cessation of cardiorespiratory function by natural death (e.g. by chronic irreversible disease) as different from the sudden, reversible cardiopulmonary arrest. It considers these situations under the light of the “Goals of Medicine” (Hastings Center, 1996). We look through the main problems, in first place the specific difficulties according to different scenarios (emergency room, maternity ward, hospital room, intensive care unit, surgical blocks); second we analyzes the uncertainty about patients prognosis and third the controversial issue about who should take charge the end of life decisions. The autonomous patient should ideally be who takes the decisions. Other cases need alternatives ways, one of them is the “Unilateral Order”. Other problems are the validity of the DNR orders in different clinical times, the problem of futility and the value of Advance Directives; in this last point POLST (Physician’s Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) approach appears as more comprehensive; at last, the new concept AND (allow natural death) could be destined to replace the DNR order.

Do-not-resuscitate Order in Patients, Who Were Deceased in a Medical Intensive Care Unit of an University Hospital in Korea / 대한구급학회지

BACKGROUND: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) in the event of a cardiac arrest is the most common and important discussion between a patient's family and physicians among the end-of-life decision-making process. To observe the performance of a DNR order in critically ill patients, we analyzed the incidence of DNR orders, the changes in therapeutic levels after DNR orders, and the cases of violated DNR codes in patients who had died in a Korean medical intensive care unit (ICU) between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2006. METHODS: The charts of patients who had died in the medical ICU were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred two patients were enrolled. The ICU and hospital lengths of stay of the patients were 12.4 +/- 14.0 and 23.2 +/- 21.1 days, respectively. Hematologic malignancy (24.5%) accounted for the most common premorbid diagnosis before ICU admission. Seventy-five patients (73.5%) had DNR orders. The DNR order was suggested by the physician in 96% of the patients. There was no significant difference in the clinical parameters and the performance of a DNR order. Eighty-four percent of the patients with a DNR order had received the order within 3 days death. The withholding of additional therapy or withdrawing of current therapy occurred in 57.3% of the patients. The DNR order was violated in 9 cases (12%). CONCLUSIONS: DNR orders are well-accepted by the patient's family in the ICU. However, DNR orders are initiated when patient death is imminent.