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
Comparative Study
. 2011 Apr;139(4):802-809.
doi: 10.1378/chest.10-1798. Epub 2011 Feb 3.

Code status orders and goals of care in the medical ICU

Thomas G Gehlbach  1 , Laura A Shinkunas  2 , Valerie L Forman-Hoffman  3 , Karl W Thomas  1 , Gregory A Schmidt  1 , Lauris C Kaldjian  4
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Code status orders and goals of care in the medical ICU

Thomas G Gehlbach et al. Chest. 2011 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Decisions about CPR in the medical ICU (MICU) are important. However, discussions about CPR (code status discussions) can be challenging and may be incomplete if they do not address goals of care.

Methods: We interviewed 100 patients, or their surrogates, and their physicians in an MICU. We queried the patients/surrogates on their knowledge of CPR, code status preferences, and goals of care; we queried MICU physicians about goals of care and treatment plans. Medical records were reviewed for clinical information and code status orders.

Results: Fifty patients/surrogates recalled discussing CPR preferences with a physician, and 51 recalled discussing goals of care. Eighty-three patients/surrogates preferred full code status, but only four could identify the three main components of in-hospital CPR (defibrillation, chest compressions, intubation). There were 16 discrepancies between code status preferences expressed during the interview and code status orders in the medical record. Respondents' average prediction of survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest with CPR was 71.8%, and the higher the prediction of survival, the greater the frequency of preference for full code status (P = .012). Of six possible goals of care, approximately five were affirmed by each patient/surrogate and physician, but 67.7% of patients/surrogates differed with their physicians about the most important goal of care.

Conclusions: Patients in the MICU and their surrogates have inadequate knowledge about in-hospital CPR and its likelihood of success, patients' code status preferences may not always be reflected in code status orders, and assessments may differ between patients/surrogates and physicians about what goal of care is most important.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of patients included in the study.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Venn diagrams of the selections by patients/surrogates and physicians selections of the most important goals of care.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. von Gunten CF, Ferris FD, Emanuel LL. The patient-physician relationship. Ensuring competency in end-of-life care: communication and relational skills. JAMA. 2000;284(23):3051–3057. - PubMed
    1. Hofmann JC, Wenger NS, Davis RB, et al. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preference for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(1):1–12. - PubMed
    1. Wenger NS, Phillips RS, Teno JM, et al. Physician understanding of patient resuscitation preferences: insights and clinical implications. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(5) Suppl:S44–S51. - PubMed
    1. Evans LR, Boyd EA, Malvar G, et al. Surrogate decision-makers’ perspectives on discussing prognosis in the face of uncertainty. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;179(1):48–53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. White DB, Braddock CH, III, Bereknyei S, Curtis JR. Toward shared decision making at the end of life in intensive care units: opportunities for improvement. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(5):461–467. - PubMed

Publication types