Do-not-resuscitate orders for critically ill patients in the hospital. How are they used and what is their impact?

We studied compliance with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders at a university hospital where a DNR protocol has existed since 1979. Documentation of DNR status in patient progress notes and chart orders increased through 1983. During a 12-month period (March 1983 through April 1984), we studied in detail the medical records of 521 patients who had a cardiopulmonary arrest in the hospital. Seventy-five percent (389 of 521) of these patients were designated DNR. Patients who were designated DNR were significantly more likely to be older, to have malignancy or an abnormal mental status, and to be less likely to have acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than patients in whom resuscitation was attempted. Eighty-six percent of families, but only 22% of patients, were involved in the decision to designate a patient DNR. The decision to designate a patient DNR occurred late in the course of a patient's illness, often when the patient was in coma. For 28% of patients, some form of medical care was withdrawn or withheld after they were designated DNR. These data suggest that use of the DNR protocol requires changes if patients are to participate in the decision not to undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation.     

Effects of labeling and treatment of hypertension on perceived health

The effects of labeling a person as hypertensive have important implications for hypertension screening. The Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program (HDFP) provides an opportunity to examine the effects of labeling, treatment, and study assignment on a large group of hypertensives (n = 10,070). Their answers to questions regarding perceived health and general well-being asked at baseline and again one year later were analyzed. There was no significant change in the perceived health status of persons who were unaware of their hypertension at baseline and remained untreated at one year (labeling alone). The effect of labeling plus treatment was associated with a significant decrease in perceived health. The effect of antihypertensive drug therapy on perceived health status was examined in persons who were aware of their hypertension but not on treatment at baseline, and on treatment at one year. The stepped care group (SC) had a significant improvement in their perceived health and a significant decrease in the amount of time spent worrying about their health. The referred care group (RC) had no change. Program assignment effects were studied in individuals aware of their hypertension and on treatment both at baseline and one year later. Both the SC and RC groups had a significant improvement in their perceptions of their health status. The SC group had a significant decrease in time spent worrying about their health, while the RC group showed no change. These reassuring results fail to support the suggestion that labeling persons as hypertensive is necessarily followed by negative psychological consequences.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of two in vitro methods of bone lead analysis and the implications for in vivo measurements

Atomic absorption spectrometry and x-ray fluorescence have been used to determine the lead content of metatarsal and tibia bone samples. For a range of bone lead levels from 6.5 to 83 micrograms g-1 of ashed bone there is no evidence of a systematic difference between the two techniques of more than 1 microgram g-1. There is, however, some evidence that random differences between the two in vitro analyses applied to the same bone sample are larger than can be accounted for by known measurement uncertainties. Variations in bone composition could account for these differences. Because the x-ray fluorescence technique is applied in an identical way to in vivo analysis, it is concluded that the uncertainties in in vivo measurements are small.