Background: The effect of a do-not-resuscitate order on the standard of care of critically ill patients is of concern to practitioners, patients, and their families. Because "do not resuscitate" may be misconstrued to include more than "no cardiopulmonary resuscitation," it may influence the aggressiveness with which some patients are managed. Nurses play a central role in determining standards of care. Hence, confusion on their part as to the meaning of this term can have a significant impact on patient care.
Objectives: To compare nurses' attitudes about standards of care for critically ill patients with and without a do-not-resuscitate order.
Method: A quasi-experimental design using simulation measurement was used for this study.
Results: Nurses reported that they would be significantly less likely to perform a variety of physiologic monitoring modalities and interventions for patients with a do-not-resuscitate order than for patients without such an order. Patients with a do-not-resuscitate order were more likely to receive psychosocial interventions including assessment of their spiritual needs and more flexible visiting practices.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that "do-not-resuscitate" may be misinterpreted to include more than "no cardiopulmonary resuscitation" even if the patient is receiving aggressive medical management. Misinterpretation of orders not to resuscitate may be related to a variety of factors including lack of understanding about hospital policy and ethical and moral values of the staff. We suggest replacing orders such as "Do not resuscitate" with clearly defined resuscitation plans that are jointly determined by the multidisciplinary team, patient, and family.