Physicians’ Experiences of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) Orders in Hematology and Oncology Care – A Qualitative Study

Mona Pettersson, Mariann Hedström, A. Höglund
{"title":"Physicians’ Experiences of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) Orders in Hematology and Oncology Care – A Qualitative Study","authors":"Mona Pettersson, Mariann Hedström, A. Höglund","doi":"10.4172/2165-7386.1000275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: In oncology and hematology care, a patient can have such a poor prognosis that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest is not considered feasible. The responsible physician can then decide to apply a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order, meaning that neither basic (heart compressions and ventilation) nor advanced (defibrillator or medicines) CPR should be performed. Previous research has found disagreement in relation to DNR decisions among physicians and nurses working in this field. The aim of the present study was to explore the experiences and perceptions of physicians with respect to DNR orders within hematology and oncology care, in order to better understand their specific roles in this decision-making process, with focus on the ethical aspects of the decisions. Methods: Individual interviews were performed with 16 physicians working in hematology and oncology departments at seven hospitals in Sweden. Data were analyzed using systematic text condensation (STC). Results: Two main parts of the data were discerned. The first described the physicians’ different roles in the team in relation to decisions on DNR, as decision maker, patient advocate and mediator for relatives and team member. In the second part the physicians shared their experiences of making ethically challenging decisions on DNR. The experiences ranged from feeling as though they were making themselves God, to regarding a DNR order as one regular medical decision among others. The physicians made decisions on CPR or DNR with the patient's best interests in mind, primarily on medical grounds. However, they also considered ethical aspects of the decision, weighing beneficence versus maleficence. Conclusion: The results indicate that DNR decisions in oncology and hematology care are not only taken on medical grounds, such as the prognosis of the disease and the expected survival after CPR, but also with reference to ethical values, such as patient autonomy and the quality of life after resuscitation.","PeriodicalId":91127,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative care & medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":"1-1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2165-7386.1000275","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative care & medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7386.1000275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: In oncology and hematology care, a patient can have such a poor prognosis that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest is not considered feasible. The responsible physician can then decide to apply a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order, meaning that neither basic (heart compressions and ventilation) nor advanced (defibrillator or medicines) CPR should be performed. Previous research has found disagreement in relation to DNR decisions among physicians and nurses working in this field. The aim of the present study was to explore the experiences and perceptions of physicians with respect to DNR orders within hematology and oncology care, in order to better understand their specific roles in this decision-making process, with focus on the ethical aspects of the decisions. Methods: Individual interviews were performed with 16 physicians working in hematology and oncology departments at seven hospitals in Sweden. Data were analyzed using systematic text condensation (STC). Results: Two main parts of the data were discerned. The first described the physicians’ different roles in the team in relation to decisions on DNR, as decision maker, patient advocate and mediator for relatives and team member. In the second part the physicians shared their experiences of making ethically challenging decisions on DNR. The experiences ranged from feeling as though they were making themselves God, to regarding a DNR order as one regular medical decision among others. The physicians made decisions on CPR or DNR with the patient's best interests in mind, primarily on medical grounds. However, they also considered ethical aspects of the decision, weighing beneficence versus maleficence. Conclusion: The results indicate that DNR decisions in oncology and hematology care are not only taken on medical grounds, such as the prognosis of the disease and the expected survival after CPR, but also with reference to ethical values, such as patient autonomy and the quality of life after resuscitation.
医生在血液学和肿瘤学护理中不复苏(DNR)命令的经验-一项定性研究
目的:在肿瘤学和血液学护理中,患者可能预后不良,心脏骤停的心肺复苏(CPR)不被认为是可行的。然后负责的医生可以决定申请不复苏(DNR)命令,这意味着既不应该进行基本的(心脏按压和通气)也不应该进行高级的(除颤器或药物)心肺复苏术。先前的研究发现,在这一领域工作的医生和护士之间,关于DNR决定存在分歧。本研究的目的是探讨医生在血液学和肿瘤学护理中关于DNR订单的经验和看法,以便更好地了解他们在这一决策过程中的具体角色,重点关注决策的伦理方面。方法:对瑞典7家医院的16名血液科和肿瘤科医生进行单独访谈。采用系统文本浓缩(STC)对数据进行分析。结果:对数据的两个主要部分进行了识别。第一部分描述了医生在团队中与DNR决策相关的不同角色,作为决策者、患者倡导者和亲属和团队成员的调解人。在第二部分中,医生们分享了他们在DNR中做出具有道德挑战性的决定的经验。经历的范围从感觉好像他们把自己变成了上帝,到将DNR命令视为其他常规医疗决定中的一个。医生在做心肺复苏术或不抢救的决定时,要考虑到病人的最大利益,主要是出于医学上的考虑。然而,他们也考虑了道德方面的决定,权衡善行与邪恶。结论:肿瘤学和血液学护理的DNR决策不仅要考虑疾病预后和心肺复苏后的预期生存等医学因素,还要考虑患者自主权和复苏后的生活质量等伦理价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信