Preparing for end-of-life: learning from Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decision-making during COVID-19.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made differently. This included more prominent roles for specialties such as psychiatry and doctors in training. Concerns about inappropriate DNAR decisions led to anxiety for doctors, patients and the public. Positive outcomes may have included earlier and better-quality end-of life-discussions. However, COVID-19 exposed the need for support, training and guidance in this area for all doctors. It also highlighted the importance of effective public education about advanced care planning.

Disparities in Unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Order Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: A unilateral do-not-resuscitate (UDNR) order is a do-not-resuscitate order placed using clinician judgment which does not require consent from a patient or surrogate. This study assessed how UDNR orders were used during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We analyzed a retrospective cross-sectional study of UDNR use at two academic medical centers between April 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: Two academic medical centers in the Chicago metropolitan area. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to an ICU between April 2020 and April 2021 who received vasopressor or inotropic medications to select for patients with high severity of illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 1,473 patients meeting inclusion criteria were 53% male, median age 64 (interquartile range, 54-73), and 38% died during admission or were discharged to hospice. Clinicians placed do not resuscitate orders for 41% of patients ( n = 604/1,473) and UDNR orders for 3% of patients ( n = 51/1,473). The absolute rate of UDNR orders was higher for patients who were primary Spanish speaking (10% Spanish vs 3% English; p ≤ 0.0001), were Hispanic or Latinx (7% Hispanic/Latinx vs 3% Black vs 2% White; p = 0.003), positive for COVID-19 (9% vs 3%; p ≤ 0.0001), or were intubated (5% vs 1%; p = 0.001). In the base multivariable logistic regression model including age, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, and hospital location, Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9) and primary Spanish language (aOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.1-9.4) had higher odds of UDNR. After adjusting the base model for severity of illness, primary Spanish language remained associated with higher odds of UDNR order (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this multihospital study, UDNR orders were used more often for primary Spanish-speaking patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be related to communication barriers Spanish-speaking patients and families experience. Further study is needed to assess UDNR use across hospitals and enact interventions to improve potential disparities.

Treatment of patients with 'do not intubate orders'.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Do-not-intubate (DNI) orders are more frequently encountered over time. This widespread diffusion of DNI orders make it essential to develop therapeutic strategies matching patient's and his family willingness. The present review sheds light on the therapeutic approaches employed to support respiratory function of patients with DNI orders. RECENT FINDINGS: In DNI patients, several approaches have been described to relieve dyspnoea and address acute respiratory failure (ARF). Despite its extensive use, supplemental oxygen is not so useful in assuring dyspnoea relief. Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) is frequently employed to treat ARF in DNI patients. Also, to enhance DNI patients comfort during NIRS, it is worthy to point out the role of analgo-sedative medications. Lastly, a particular aspect concerns the first waves of coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, when DNI orders have been pursued on factors unrelated to patient's wishes, in the total absence of family support due to the lockdown policy. In this setting, NIRS has been extensively employed in DNI patients with a survival rate of around 20%. SUMMARY: In dealing with DNI patients, the individualization of treatments is of pivotal importance to respect patient's preferences and improve quality of life at the same time.

Obstacles to patient inclusion in CPR/DNAR decisions and challenging conversations: A qualitative study with internal medicine physicians in Southern Switzerland.

Despite cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) decisions are increasingly considered an essential component of hospital practice and patient inclusion in these conversations an ethical imperative in most cases, there is evidence that such discussions between physicians and patients/surrogate decision-makers (the person or people providing direction in decision making if a person is unable to make decisions about personal health care, e.g., family members or friends) are often inadequate, excessively delayed, or absent. We conducted a study to qualitatively explore physician-reported CPR/DNAR decision-making approaches and CPR/DNAR conversations with patients hospitalized in the internal medicine wards of the four main hospitals in Ticino, Southern Switzerland. We conducted four focus groups with 19 resident and staff physicians employed in the internal medicine unit of the four public hospitals in Ticino. Questions aimed to elicit participants' specific experiences in deciding on and discussing CPR/DNAR with patients and their families, the stakeholders (ideally) involved in the discussion, and their responsibilities. We found that participants experienced two main tensions. On the one side, CPR/DNAR decisions were dominated by the belief that patient involvement is often pointless, even though participants favored a shared decision-making approach. On the other, despite aiming at a non-manipulative conversation, participants were aware that most CPR/DNAR conversations are characterized by a nudging communicative approach where the physician gently pushes patients towards his/her recommendation. Participants identified structural cause to the previous two tensions that go beyond the patient-physician relationship. CPR/DNAR decisions are examples of best interests assessments at the end of life. Such assessments represent value judgments that cannot be validly ascertained without patient input. CPR/DNAR conversations should be regarded as complex interventions that need to be thoroughly and regularly taught, in a manner similar to technical interventions.

Admission Code Status and End-of-life Care for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted variability in intensity of care. We aimed to characterize intensity of care among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: Examine the prevalence and predictors of admission code status, palliative care consultation, comfort-measures-only orders, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined data from an international registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A proportional odds model evaluated predictors of more aggressive code status (i.e., Full Code) vs. less (i.e., Do Not Resuscitate, DNR). Among decedents, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of palliative care consultation, comfort measures only, and CPR at time of death. RESULTS: We included 29,923 patients across 179 sites. Among those with admission code status documented, Full Code was selected by 90% (n = 15,273). Adjusting for site, Full Code was more likely for patients who were of Black or Asian race (ORs 1.82, 95% CIs 1.5-2.19; 1.78, 1.15-3.09 respectively, relative to White race), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.89, CI 1.35-2.32), and male sex (OR 1.16, CI 1.0-1.33). Of the 4951 decedents, 29% received palliative care consultation, 59% transitioned to comfort measures only, and 29% received CPR, with non-White racial and ethnic groups less likely to receive comfort measures only and more likely to receive CPR. CONCLUSION: In this international cohort of patients with COVID-19, Full Code was the initial code status in the majority, and more likely among patients who were Black or Asian race, Hispanic ethnicity or male. These results provide direction for future studies to improve these disparities in care.

If Your Heart Were to Stop: Characterization and Comparison of Code Status Orders in Adult Patients Admitted with COVID-19.

Aim: Our aim is to characterize code status documentation for patients hospitalized with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) during the first peak of the pandemic, when prognosis, resource availability, and provider safety were uncertain. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single tertiary academic medical center. Adult patients admitted between March 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020 who tested positive for COVID-19 were included. Demographic and hospital outcome data were collected. Code status orders during this admission and prior admissions were trended. Data were analyzed with multivariable analysis to identify predictors of code status choice. Results: A total of 720 patients were included. The majority (70%) were full code and 12% were in do-not-attempt resuscitation (DNAR) status on admission; by discharge, 20% were DNAR. Age (p < 0.001), time in the intensive care unit (ICU) (p < 0.001), and having Medicaid (p = 0.04) compared to private insurance were predictors of DNAR. Fourteen percent had no code status order. Older age (p < 0.001), time in the ICU (p = 0.01), and admission to a teaching service (p < 0.001) were associated with having an order. Of patients with a prior admission (n = 227), 33.5% previously had no code status order and 44.5% had a different code status for their COVID-19 admission. Of those with a change, most transitioned to less aggressive resuscitation preferences. Conclusions: Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our study elected to be full code. Almost half of patients with prepandemic admissions had a different code status during their COVID-19 admission, with a trend toward less aggressive resuscitation preference.

DNACPR Decisions: Aligning Law, Guidance, and Practice.

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions are a means to consider in advance the appropriateness of CPR measures if an acute crisis arises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, problems with such decisions, for example the putting in place of DNACPR decisions for all residents of certain care homes, received a lot of attention, prompting a Care Quality Commission (CQC) report with recommendations for improvement. Building on the CQC report, our article addresses a cluster of legal uncertainties surrounding DNACPR decisions, in particular about the grounds for such decisions and the correct procedures for the legally required consultation, including with whom to consult. This article will also analyse commonly used DNACPR forms, as well as the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, which aims to incorporate DNACPR decisions as part of more holistic end-of-life care planning. The analysis shows that all forms exhibit shortcomings in reflecting the legal requirements for DNACPR decisions. We recommend a number of changes to the forms aimed at rendering DNACPR practice compliant with the law and more protective of the person's human rights.

Early DNR in Older Adults Hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Initial Pandemic Surge.

The role of early Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) in hospitalized older adults (OAs) with SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. The objective of the study was to identify characteristics and outcomes associated with early DNR in hospitalized OAs with SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a retrospective chart review of older adults (65+) hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York, USA, between March 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020. Patient characteristics and hospital outcomes were collected. Early DNR (within 24 hours of admission) was compared to non-early DNR (late DNR, after 24 hours of admission, or no DNR). Outcomes included hospital morbidity and mortality. Of 4961 patients, early DNR prevalence was 5.7% (n = 283). Compared to non-early DNR, the early DNR group was older (85.0 vs 76.8, P < .001), women (51.2% vs 43.6%, P = .012), with higher comorbidity index (3.88 vs 3.36, P < .001), facility-based (49.1% vs 19.1%, P < .001), with dementia (13.3% vs 4.6%, P < .001), and severely ill on presentation (57.9% vs 32.3%, P < .001). In multivariable analyses, the early DNR group had higher mortality risk (OR: 2.94, 95% CI: 2.10-4.11), less hospital delirium (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40-.77), lower use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV, OR: 0.37, 95% CI: .21-.67), and shorter length of stay (LOS, 4.8 vs 10.3 days, P < .001), compared to non-early DNR. Regarding early vs late DNR, while there was no difference in mortality (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.85-1.62), the early DNR group experienced less delirium (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: .40-.75), IMV (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-.96), and shorter LOS (4.82 vs 10.63 days, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.30-.41). In conclusion, early DNR prevalence in hospitalized OAs with COVID-19 was low, and compared to non-early DNR is associated with higher mortality but lower morbidity.

DNACPR decisions during Covid-19: An empirical and analytical study.

Considerable concern has arisen during the Covid pandemic over the use of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decisions (DNACPRs) in England and Wales, particularly around the potential blanket application of them on older adults and those with learning disabilities. In this article, we set out the legal background to DNACPRs in England and the concerns raised during Covid. We also report on an empirical study that examined the use of DNACPRs across 23 Trusts in England, which found overall increases in the number of patients with a DNACPR decision during the two main Covid 'waves' (23 March 2020-31 January 2021) compared with the previous year. We found that these increases were largest among those in mid-life age groups, despite older patients (in particular, older women) having a higher number of DNACPR decisions overall. However, further analysis revealed that DNACPR decisions remained fairly consistent with regard to patient sex and age, with small reductions seen in the oldest age groups. We found that a disproportionate number of Black Caribbean patients had a DNACPR decision. Overall, approximately one in five patients was not consulted about the DNACPR decision, but during the first Covid wave more patients were consulted than pre-Covid.

Say No to This: Unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders for Patients with COVID-19.

In this article, we comment on Ciaffa's article 'The Ethics of Unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders for COVID-19 Patients.' We summarize his argument criticizing futility and utilitarianism as the key ethical justifications for unilateral do-not-resuscitate orders for patients with COVID-19.

The Ethics of Unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders for COVID-19 Patients.

This paper examines several decision-making models that have been proposed to limit the use of CPR for COVID-19 patients. My main concern will be to assess proposals for the implementation of unilateral DNRs - i.e., orders to withhold CPR without the agreement of patients or their surrogates.

Role of advanced respiratory support in acute respiratory failure in clinically frail patients with COVID-19.

Background: The main aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of advanced respiratory support (ARS) for acute respiratory failure in do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order (DNACPR) COVID-19 patients. Methods: In this single-center study, the impact of different types of ARS modality, PaO2/FiO2 (PF) ratio, clinical frailty score (CFS) and 4C score on mortality was evaluated. Results: There was no significant difference in age, type of ARS modality, PF ratio and 4C scores between those who died and those who survived. Overall survival rates/hospital discharge of patients still requiring ARS at 5 and 7 days post admission were 20 and 17%, respectively. Conclusion: Our study showed that ARS can be a useful tool in frail, elderly and high-risk COVID-19 patients irrespective of high 4C mortality score.

Relational ethical approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key ethical challenges for healthcare workers arising from the COVID-19 pandemic are identified: isolation and social distancing, duty of care and fair access to treatment. The paper argues for a relational approach to ethics which includes solidarity, relational autonomy, duty, equity, trust and reciprocity as core values. The needs of the poor and socially disadvantaged are highlighted. Relational autonomy and solidarity are explored in relation to isolation and social distancing. Reciprocity is discussed with reference to healthcare workers' duty of care and its limits. Priority setting and access to treatment raise ethical issues of utility and equity. Difficult ethical dilemmas around triage, do not resuscitate decisions, and withholding and withdrawing treatment are discussed in the light of recently published guidelines. The paper concludes with the hope for a wider discussion of relational ethics and a glimpse of a future after the pandemic has subsided.

Treatment intensity and mortality among COVID-19 patients with dementia: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether dementia is associated with treatment intensity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This study includes review of the medical records for patients >60 years of age (n = 5394) hospitalized with COVID-19 from 132 community hospitals between March and June 2020. We examined the relationships between dementia and treatment intensity (including intensive care unit [ICU] admission and mechanical ventilation [MV] and care processes that may influence them, including advance care planning [ACP] billing and do-not-resuscitate [DNR] orders) and in-hospital mortality adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, month of hospitalization, and clustering within hospital. We further explored the effect of ACP conversations on the relationship between dementia and outcomes, both at the individual patient level (effect of having ACP) and at the hospital level (effect of being treated at a hospital with low: <10%, medium 10%-20%, or high >20% ACP rates). RESULTS: Ten percent (n = 522) of the patients had documented dementia. Dementia patients were older (>80 years: 60% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001), had a lower burden of comorbidity (3+ comorbidities: 31% vs. 38%, p = 0.003), were more likely to have ACP (28% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001) and a DNR order (52% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001), had similar rates of ICU admission (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.258), were less likely to receive MV (11% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), and more likely to die (22% vs. 14%, p < 0.0001). Differential treatment intensity among patients with dementia was concentrated in hospitals with low, dementia-biased ACP billing practices (risk-adjusted ICU use: 21% vs. 30%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, p = 0.016; risk-adjusted MV use: 6% vs. 16%, OR = 0.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dementia was associated with lower treatment intensity and higher mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Differential treatment intensity was concentrated in low ACP billing hospitals suggesting an interplay between provider bias and "preference-sensitive" care for COVID-19.

[Living wills of residents in nursing homes - which treatment situations and treatment measures are decreed?] / Patientenverfügungen von Bewohnenden in Pflegeeinrichtungen ­ welche Behandlungssituationen und Behandlungsmaßnahmen werden vorausverfügt?

BACKGROUND: The possibility of using a living will to influence later treatment in the event of incapacity to consent is nowadays an important element in safeguarding patients' autonomy at the end of life. Refusing or consenting treatment measures in advance of treatment is of particular importance for nursing home residents, not only against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a survey of all resident-documents in 13 nursing homes of different sizes and service providers in the city and district of Wuerzburg. The documents were analysed according to a deductive-inductive procedure using categorical summaries and descriptive frequency counts. RESULTS: In 265 recorded living wills, 2072 treatment situations and 1673 treatment measures could be identified. Residents largely agree to symptom-relieving and nursing measures and often reject life-prolonging or life-substaining treatment measures, the latter mostly being limited to specific, defined situations. The reference to certain treatment situations regarding resuscitation attempts, both in the form of refusal and consent, was identified in 88.6 % of the living wills. 62 % of the living wills could be assigned to a template. DISCUSSION: The study provides information about the content of living wills of nursing home residents. It thus provides information on medical treatment preferences in the case of incapacity to consent and shows that treatment measures (including resuscitation) are mostly related to specific treatment situations.