Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2003 Oct 14;169(8):795-9.

Determining resuscitation preferences of elderly inpatients: a review of the literature

Christopher Frank  1 , Daren K Heyland, Benjamin Chen, Donald Farquhar, Kathryn Myers, Ken Iwaasa
Affiliations
Review

Determining resuscitation preferences of elderly inpatients: a review of the literature

Christopher Frank et al. CMAJ. .

Abstract

Studies have shown that discussions with elderly hospital patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences occur infrequently and have variable content. Our objective was to identify themes in the existing literature that could be used to increase the frequency and improve the quality of such discussions. We found that patients and families are familiar with the concept of CPR but have limited understanding of the procedure and overestimate its benefit. Most patients are interested in being involved in discussions about CPR and in sharing responsibility for decisions with physicians; however, older patients who participate in these discussions may have variable decision-making capacity. Physicians do not routinely discuss CPR with older patients, and patients do not initiate such discussions. When discussions do occur, the information provided to patients or families about resuscitation and its outcomes is not always consistent. Physicians should initiate CPR discussions, consider patients' levels of understanding and decision-making capacity, share responsibility for decisions where appropriate and involve the family where possible. Documentation of discussions and patient preferences may help to minimize misunderstandings and increase the stability of the decision during subsequent admissions to hospital.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Box 1
Box 1
Box 2
Box 2
Box 3
Box 3
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Heyland DK, Lavery JV, Tranmer J, Shortt SED. The final days: an analysis of the dying experience in Ontario. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can 2000;33:356-61.
    1. Phillips RS, Wenger NS, Teno J, Oye RK, Youngner S, Califf R, et al. Choices of seriously ill patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation: correlates and outcomes. Am J Med 1996;100:128-37. - PubMed
    1. Kernerman P, Cook DJ, Griffith LE. Documenting life-support preferences in hospitalized patients. J Crit Care 1997;12(4):155-60. - PubMed
    1. Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Garland MJ, Nelson CA. Decisions about life-sustaining treatment: impact of physicians' behaviors on the family. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:633-8. - PubMed
    1. Abbott KH, Sago JG, Breen CM, Abernethy AP, Tulsky JA. Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. Crit Care Med 2001;29:197-201. - PubMed