Department of Medical Gerontology, Mercer's Institute for Successful Ageing, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
J Med Ethics. 2018 Mar;44(3):201-203. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103986. Epub 2017 Nov 3.
Following the introduction of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in the 1970s, there was widespread misinterpretation of the term among healthcare professionals. In this brief report, we present findings from a survey of healthcare professionals. Our aim was to examine current understanding of the term do-not-attempt-resuscitate (DNAR), decision-making surrounding DNAR and awareness of current guidelines. The survey was distributed to doctors and nurses in a university teaching hospital and affiliated primary care physicians in Dublin via email and by hard copy at educational meetings from July to December 2014. A total of 519 completed the survey. The response rate in the hospital doctors group was 35.5% (187/527), 19.8% (292/1477) in the nurses group but 68.8% (150/218) in the specialist nurses group and 40% (40/100) in the primary care physician group.Alarmingly, our results demonstrate that 26.8% of staff nurses and 30% of primary care physicians surveyed believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not receive any/at least one of a list of simple treatments including antibiotics, physiotherapy, intravenous fluids, pain relief, oxygen, nasogastric feeding or airway suctioning, which were higher percentages compared to the other hospital doctors and experienced nurses groups with statistically significant differences (p<0.001). Furthermore, a higher percentage of staff nurses (26.8%) and primary care physicians (22.5%) believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not be referred to hospital from home/a nursing home, when compared with other healthcare groups (p<0.001). Our findings highlight continued misunderstanding and over-interpretation of DNAR orders. Further collaboration and information is required for meaningful Advance Care Plans.
自 20 世纪 70 年代引入“不复苏”(Do Not Resuscitate,DNR)医嘱以来,医护人员对此术语存在广泛的误解。在本简要报告中,我们呈现了一项针对医护人员的调查结果。我们的目的是检查当前对“不尝试复苏”(Do Not Attempt Resuscitation,DNAR)这一术语的理解、围绕 DNAR 的决策以及对当前指南的认知。该调查于 2014 年 7 月至 12 月期间,通过电子邮件和教育会议的纸质版分发给都柏林一家大学教学医院的医生和护士以及附属初级保健医生。共有 519 人完成了调查。在医院医生组中的回应率为 35.5%(187/527),护士组为 19.8%(292/1477),但专科护士组为 68.8%(150/218),初级保健医生组为 40%(40/100)。令人震惊的是,我们的结果表明,接受调查的 26.8%的护士和 30%的初级保健医生认为,有 DNR 医嘱的患者不能接受包括抗生素、物理治疗、静脉输液、止痛、吸氧、鼻胃管喂养或气道抽吸等简单治疗中的任何一种/至少一种,这比其他医院医生和经验丰富的护士群体的比例更高,且存在统计学显著差异(p<0.001)。此外,与其他医疗保健群体相比,更多的护士(26.8%)和初级保健医生(22.5%)认为,有 DNR 医嘱的患者不能从家中/疗养院转至医院,(p<0.001)。我们的发现强调了对 DNR 医嘱的持续误解和过度解读。需要进一步合作和信息交流,以制定有意义的预嘱。