Scholarlink

Background <p>Code status discussions are often inadequate, omitting key information on prognosis and resuscitation risks. In the randomized controlled CLEAR trial, use of a checklist to guide shared decision-making for code status discussions improved the quality of care by reducing patients’ uncertainty and increasing their satisfaction with discussions and knowledge of this topic. Moreover, a higher rate of “do-not-resuscitate” (DNR) code status preference was observed during the index hospital stay. The present analysis evaluates whether these effects were sustained over time.</p> Objective <p>To evaluate the documented code status (primary outcome) and exploratory secondary outcomes, including patients’ general knowledge about resuscitation measures after a mean follow-up time of 3.2&#xa0;years, assessed by telephone interview.</p> Design <p>Long-term follow-up of a prospective, randomized controlled study.</p> Participants <p>Of the 1954 medical inpatients in the previous CLEAR trial, 604 had died and 10 were excluded due to missing information, leaving 1340 patients for analysis (mean age 65.0 (SD ± 16.3) years, 44.1% female).</p> Interventions <p>Code status discussions using a shared decision-making checklist including visual decision support addressing prognosis, resuscitation outcomes, and patient values compared to usual care.</p> Main Measures <p>Last documented code status at follow-up.</p> Key Results <p>Patients in the intervention group had a significantly higher rate of documented DNR status at follow-up compared to patients in the usual care group (251 [36.1%] vs. 191 [29.8%]; adjusted risk ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.45, <i>p</i> = 0.02). No significant differences were observed in knowledge about resuscitation measures.</p> Conclusions <p>Several years after a shared decision-making code status discussion, patients recalled little specific knowledge about resuscitation measures and their prognostic outcomes. However, the intervention group maintained a higher documented preference for DNR. These results highlight the need for repeated discussions, including prognosis and expected outcomes, to support informed and consistent decision-making.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does Checklist-Guided Shared Decision Making Have a Sustained Effect on Code Status Decisions Among Medical Inpatients? Long-Term Follow Up of the Randomized CLEAR Checklist Trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月14日

查看全文
  • Benjamin Bissmann,
  • Samuel K. Zumbrunn,
  • Sebastian Gross,
  • Christoph Becker,
  • Armon Arpagaus,
  • Flavio Gössi,
  • Leta Arpagaus,
  • Rahel Kuster,
  • Philipp Schuetz,
  • Jörg D. Leuppi,
  • Drahomir Aujesky,
  • Balthasar L. Hug,
  • Thomas Peters,
  • Arnoud J. Templeton,
  • Stefano Bassetti,
  • Sabina Hunziker

摘要

Background

Code status discussions are often inadequate, omitting key information on prognosis and resuscitation risks. In the randomized controlled CLEAR trial, use of a checklist to guide shared decision-making for code status discussions improved the quality of care by reducing patients’ uncertainty and increasing their satisfaction with discussions and knowledge of this topic. Moreover, a higher rate of “do-not-resuscitate” (DNR) code status preference was observed during the index hospital stay. The present analysis evaluates whether these effects were sustained over time.

Objective

To evaluate the documented code status (primary outcome) and exploratory secondary outcomes, including patients’ general knowledge about resuscitation measures after a mean follow-up time of 3.2 years, assessed by telephone interview.

Design

Long-term follow-up of a prospective, randomized controlled study.

Participants

Of the 1954 medical inpatients in the previous CLEAR trial, 604 had died and 10 were excluded due to missing information, leaving 1340 patients for analysis (mean age 65.0 (SD ± 16.3) years, 44.1% female).

Interventions

Code status discussions using a shared decision-making checklist including visual decision support addressing prognosis, resuscitation outcomes, and patient values compared to usual care.

Main Measures

Last documented code status at follow-up.

Key Results

Patients in the intervention group had a significantly higher rate of documented DNR status at follow-up compared to patients in the usual care group (251 [36.1%] vs. 191 [29.8%]; adjusted risk ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.45, p = 0.02). No significant differences were observed in knowledge about resuscitation measures.

Conclusions

Several years after a shared decision-making code status discussion, patients recalled little specific knowledge about resuscitation measures and their prognostic outcomes. However, the intervention group maintained a higher documented preference for DNR. These results highlight the need for repeated discussions, including prognosis and expected outcomes, to support informed and consistent decision-making.