↓ Skip to main content

Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: Why They Have Failed and How to Fix Them

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: Why They Have Failed and How to Fix Them
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11606-011-1632-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqueline K. Yuen, M. Carrington Reid, Michael D. Fetters

Abstract

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders have been in use in hospitals nationwide for over 20 years. Nonetheless, as currently implemented, they fail to adequately fulfill their two intended purposes--to support patient autonomy and to prevent non-beneficial interventions. These failures lead to serious consequences. Patients are deprived of the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding resuscitation, and CPR is performed on patients who would have wanted it withheld or are harmed by the procedure. This article highlights the persistent problems with today's use of inpatient DNR orders, i.e., DNR discussions do not occur frequently enough and occur too late in the course of patients' illnesses to allow their participation in resuscitation decisions. Furthermore, many physicians fail to provide adequate information to allow patients or surrogates to make informed decisions and inappropriately extrapolate DNR orders to limit other treatments. Because these failings are primarily due to systemic factors that result in deficient physician behaviors, we propose strategies to target these factors including changing the hospital culture, reforming hospital policies on DNR discussions, mandating provider communication skills training, and using financial incentives. These strategies could help overcome existing barriers to proper DNR discussions and align the use of DNR orders closer to their intended purposes of supporting patient self-determination and avoiding non-beneficial interventions at the end of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 211 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Researcher 27 13%
Other 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Other 44 20%
Unknown 43 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 17%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Computer Science 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 54 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2022.
All research outputs
#441,903
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#342
of 8,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,829
of 195,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.