Why the study?
Does do not resuscitate (DNR) designation confound performance measures and 30-day mortality risk models in patients hospitalized for heart failure?
Does do not resuscitate (DNR) designation confound performance measures and 30-day mortality risk models in patients hospitalized for heart failure?
DNR status is a major confounder in heart failure comparative studies and significantly impacts hospital performance rankings based on 30-day mortality.
DNR status may confound HF 30-day mortality models and hospital rankings; leaves open whether routine adjustment improves risk prediction.
BACKGROUND: Pay for performance programs compare metrics that are risk-adjusted, but goals of care are not considered in current models. We conducted this study to explore the associations between do not resuscitate (DNR) designations, quality of care, and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study with chart review for inpatient quality metrics, 30 day mortality, and readmissions or death within 30 days of discharge in 96 Ontario hospitals participating in the Enhanced Feedback For Effective Cardiac Treatment (EFFECT) study in 2004/05. Of 8339 patients (mean age 77 years) with new heart failure, 1220 (15%) had DNR documented at admission (admission DNR, varying from 0% to 36% between hospitals) and 892 (11%) were switched from full resuscitation to DNR during their index hospitalization (later DNR). Death at 30 days was more common in patients with admission DNR (27%) or later DNR (35%) than full resuscitation (3%)-admission DNR was a stronger predictor (adjusted OR 8.6, 95% confidence interval 6.8-10.7) than any of the variables currently included in heart failure 30 day mortality risk models. Hospital-level rankings differed considerably if DNR patients were excluded: 22 of the 39 EFFECT hospitals in the top and bottom quintiles for 30 day mortality rates (the usual thresholds for rewards/penalties in current performance-based reimbursement schemes) would not have been in those same quintiles if admission DNR patients were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Alternate goals of care are frequent and important confounders in heart failure comparative studies. Philosophy of care discussions should be considered for inclusion as a potential quality of care indicator.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McAlister et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: