Cited by 136Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics in medical practice

Influence of Institutional Culture and Policies on Do-Not-Resuscitate Decision Making at the End of Life

Dzeng, Elizabeth, Colaianni, Alessandra, Roland, Martin, Chander, Geetanjali, Smith, Thomas J., Kelly, Michael P., Barclay, Stephen, Levine, David·2015·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Controversy exists regarding whether the decision to pursue a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order should be grounded in an ethic of patient autonomy or in the obligation to act in the patient's best interest (beneficence). OBJECTIVE: To explore how physicians' approaches to DNR decision making at the end of life are shaped by institutional cultures and policies surrounding patient autonomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed semistructured in-depth qualitative interviews of 58 internal medicine physicians from 4 academic medical centers (3 in the United States and 1 in the United Kingdom) by years of experience and medical subspecialty from March 7, 2013, through January 8, 2014. Hospitals were selected based on expected differences in hospital culture and variations in hospital policies regarding prioritization of autonomy vs best interest. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: This study identified the key influences of institutional culture and policies on physicians' attitudes toward patient autonomy in DNR decision making at the end of life. RESULTS: A hospital's prioritization of autonomy vs best interest as reflected in institutional culture and policy appeared to influence the way that physician trainees conceptualized patient autonomy. This finding may have influenced the degree of choice and recommendations physician trainees were willing to offer regarding DNR decision making. Trainees at hospitals where policies and culture prioritized autonomy-focused approaches appeared to have an unreflective deference to autonomy and felt compelled to offer the choice of resuscitation neutrally in all situations regardless of whether they believed resuscitation to be clinically appropriate. In contrast, trainees at hospitals where policies and culture prioritized best-interest-focused approaches appeared to be more comfortable recommending against resuscitation in situations where survival was unlikely. Experienced physicians at all sites similarly did not exclusively allow their actions to be defined by policies and institutional culture and were willing to make recommendations against resuscitation if they believed it would be futile. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Institutional cultures and policies might influence how physician trainees develop their professional attitudes toward autonomy and their willingness to make recommendations regarding the decision to implement a DNR order. A singular focus on autonomy might inadvertently undermine patient care by depriving patients and surrogates of the professional guidance needed to make critical end of life decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0295

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Discussions with the patient or those close to the patient from a goal-of-care perspective took place with a focus on comfort care without explicitly mentioning resuscitation.

    “Discussions with the patient or those close to the patient from a goal-of-care perspective took place with a focus on comfort care without explicitly mentioning resuscitation.52”
  • Ethical attitudes toward DNACPR decision-making reflect hospital policy regarding prioritisation of autonomy over best interests.

    “However, ethical attitudes toward DNACPR decision-making reflect hospital policy regarding prioritisation of autonomy over best interests,52”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dzeng, E., Colaianni, A., Roland, M., Chander, G., Smith, T. J., Kelly, M. P., Barclay, S., & Levine, D.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2015-05-01
Volume
175
Issue
5
Pages
812
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148764735
Cited by
136
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
16.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (T32 HP10025-20)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
do-not-resuscitate orders, end-of-life decisions, patient autonomy, institutional culture, hospital policy, beneficence, best interests, physician attitudes, internists, medical trainees, resuscitation decisions, futility
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Decision Making, Ethics, Institutional, United Kingdom, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Terminal Care, United States, Organizational Policy, Resuscitation Orders, Hospital-Physician Relations, Personal Autonomy, Patient Rights, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review