Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:15:14.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A communication training perspective on AND versus DNR directives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2014

Tomer T. Levin  and
Nessa Coyle
Tomer T. Levin*
Affiliation:
Communication and Research Training Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
Nessa Coyle
Affiliation:
Communication and Research Training Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Tomer T. Levin, Communication and Research Training Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave, New York, New York 10022. E-mail: levint@mskcc.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

From a communication perspective, the term “do not resuscitate” (DNR) is challenging to use in end-of-life discussions because it omits the goals of care. An alternative, “Allow Natural Death” (AND), has been proposed as a better way of framing this palliative care discussion.

Case:

We present a case where a nurse unsuccessfully discusses end-of-life goals of care using the term DNR. Subsequently, with the aid of a communication trainer, he is coached to successfully use the term “AND” to facilitate this discussion and advance his goal of palliative care communication and planning.

Discussion:

We contrast the advantages and disadvantages of the term AND from the communication training perspective and suggest that AND-framing language replace DNR as a better way to facilitate meaningful end-of-life communication. One well-designed, randomized, controlled simulation study supports this practice. We also consider the communication implications of “natural” versus “unnatural” death.

Keywords

Allow natural death (AND)Do not resuscitate (DNR)Communication trainingEnd-of-life communicationAdvance care directives
Type
Case Report
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 385 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Azoulay, E., Pochard, F., Kentish-Barnes, N., et al. (2005). Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 171(9), 987–994.Google Scholar
Barnato, A.E. & Arnold, R.M. (2013). The effect of emotion and physician communication behaviors on surrogates' life-sustaining treatment decisions: A randomized simulation experiment. Critical Care Medicine, 41(7), 1686–1691.Google Scholar
Levin, T.T., Li, Y., Weiner, J.S., et al. (2008). How do-not-resuscitate orders are utilized in cancer patients: Timing relative to death and communication-training implications. Palliative & Supportive Care, 6(4), 341–348.Google Scholar
Meyer, C. (2000). Allow natural death: An alternative to DNR? Hospice Patients Alliance. Available from http://www.hospicepatients.org/and.html.Google Scholar
Reisfield, G.M., Wallace, S.K., Munsell, M.F., et al. (2006). Survival in cancer patients undergoing in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis. Resuscitation, 71(2), 152–160.Google Scholar
Wallace, S.K., Ewer, M.S., Price, K.J., et al. (2002). Outcome and cost implications of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the medical intensive care unit of a comprehensive cancer center. Supportive Care in Cancer, 10(5), 425–429.Google Scholar