Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 295–300 | Cite as

Resuscitation decision making in the elderly

The value of outcome data
  • Ronald S. Schonwetter
  • Robert M. Walker
  • David R. Kramer
  • Bruce E. Robinson
Original Articles


Objective: To assess the relationship between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) information and desire for CPR in an elderly population and to determine the influence of outcome data on desire for CPR in older persons.

Design: An interventional study utilizing an educational program.

Setting: Elderly independent retirement community.

Participants: One hundred two persons, all more than 62 years old, who were neither demented nor depressed.

Intervention: Participants received an educational intervention consisting of descriptive CPR information and quantitative information about CPR outcomes. CPR information, survival estimates, and preferences were recorded prior to and after the intervention.

Measurements and main results: Subjects exhibited a high level of basic knowledge about CPR, which did not change with the intervention. While subjects consistently overestimated their chances of survival post CPR, these estimates decreased toward more realistic levels after the intervention (p<0.001). CPR preferences changed in three of five hypothetical clinical scenarios after the intervention (p<0.05). Those who were more realistic in their estimates of CPR survival desired less CPR in the hypothetical scenarios (p<0.01). A trend in our data suggests that quantitative outcome information may have a greater influence on CPR preferences than has descriptive information (p=0.07).

Conclusions: CPR preferences changed after an educational intervention. An improved understanding of quantitative outcome data appears to influence the desire for CPR and therefore should be included in CPR discussions with older patients.

Key words

advance directives medical decision making cardiopulmonary resuscitation CPR outcome data patient preferences elderly 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bedell SE, Delbanco TL. Choices about cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. When do physicians talk with patients? N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1089–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emanuel LL. Does the DNR order need life sustaining intervention? Time for comprehensive advance directives. Am J Med. 1986;86:87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frankl D, Oye RK, Bellamy PE. Attitudes of hospitalized patients toward life support: a survey of 200 medical inpatients. Am J Med. 1989;86:645–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moss AH. Informing the patient about cardiopulmonary resuscitation: when the risks outweigh the benefits. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:349–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lo B, McLeod GA, Saika MA. Patient attitudes to discussing life-sustaining treatment. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:1613–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shmerling RH, Bedell SE, Lilienfeld A, Delbanco TL. Discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a study of elderly outpatients. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:317–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schonwetter RS, Teasdale TA, Taffet G, Robinson BE, Luchi RJ. Educating the elderly: cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions before and after intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:372–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller A, Lo B. How do doctors discuss do-not-resuscitate orders? West J Med. 1985;143:256–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wagner A. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the aged: a prospective survey. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1129–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy DJ. Do-not-resuscitate orders: time for reappraisal in long-term-care institutions. JAMA. 1988;260:2098–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taffet GE, Teasdale TA, Luchi RJ. In-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. JAMA. 1988;260:2069–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murphy DJ, Murray AM, Robinson BE, Campion EW. Outcomes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:199–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-Mental State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin Gerontol. 1986;5:165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe M. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:914–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz S. Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1983;31:721–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Everhart MA, Pearlman RA. Stability of patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments. Chest. 1990;97:159–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen-Mansfield J, Droge JA, Billig N. Factors influencing hospital patients’ preferences in the utilization of life-sustaining treatments. Gerontologist. 1992;32:89–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald S. Schonwetter
    • 1
  • Robert M. Walker
  • David R. Kramer
  • Bruce E. Robinson
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric MedicineUniversity of South Florida College of MedicineTampa

Personalised recommendations