Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 48Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics in medical practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perspectives on the DNR decision process: A survey of nurses and physicians in hematology and oncology

Open access

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In cancer care, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions are made frequently; i.e., decisions not to start the heart in the event of a cardiac arrest. A DNR decision can be a complex process involving nurses and physicians with a wide variety of experiences and perspectives. Previous studies have shown different perceptions of the DNR decision process among nurses and physicians, e.g. concerning patient involvement and information. DNR decisions have also been reported to be unclear and documentation inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate how important and how likely to happen nurses and physicians considered various aspects of the DNR decision process, regarding participation, information and documentation, as well as which attributes they found most important in relation to DNR decisions. METHODS: A descriptive correlational study using a web survey was conducted, including 132 nurses and 84 physicians working in hematology and oncology. RESULTS: Almost half of the respondents reported it not likely that the patient would be involved in the decision on DNR, and 21% found it unimportant to inform patients of the DNR decision. Further, 57% reported that providing information to the patient was important, but only 21% stated that this was likely to happen. There were differences between nurses and physicians, especially regarding participation by and information to patients and relatives. The attributes deemed most important for both nurses and physicians pertained more to medical viewpoints than to ethical values, but a difference was found, as nurses chose patient autonomy as the most important value, while physicians rated non-maleficence as the most important value in relation to DNR decisions. CONCLUSION: Nurses and physicians need to be able to talk openly about their different perspectives on DNR decisions, so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the decisions, especially in cases where they disagree. They should also be aware that what they think is important is not always likely to happen. The organization needs to support such discussions through providing an environment that allows ethical discussions on regular basis. Patients and relatives will also benefit from receiving the same information from all caregivers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0206550

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Enrollment of participants.
Fig 1 Enrollment of participants.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Pettersson, M., Höglund, A. T., & Hedström, M.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Pettersson, Mona
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-11-21
Volume
13
Issue
11
Pages
e0206550
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2894666520
Cited by
43
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
do-not-resuscitate orders, nurses' perceptions, physicians' perspectives, patient and family information, clinical documentation, patient autonomy, non-maleficence, interprofessional differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Decision Making, Documentation, Family, Female, Hematology, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Medical Oncology, Middle Aged, Nurses, Physicians, Professional-Patient Relations, Specialization, Resuscitation Orders, Young Adult, Health Communication

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.