Evolution of Investigating Informed Assent Discussions about CPR in Seriously Ill Patients

Renee D. Stapleton*, Dee W. Ford, Katherine R. Sterba, Nandita R. Nadig, Steven Ades, Anthony L. Back, Shannon S. Carson, Katharine L. Cheung, Janet Ely, Erin K. Kross, Robert C. Macauley, Jennifer M. Maguire, Theodore W. Marcy, Jennifer J. McEntee, Prema R. Menon, Amanda Overstreet, Christine S. Ritchie, Blair Wendlandt, Sara S. Ardren, Michael BalassoneStephanie Burns, Summer Choudhury, Sandra Diehl, Ellen McCown, Elizabeth L. Nielsen, Sudiptho R. Paul, Colleen Rice, Katherine K. Taylor, Ruth A. Engelberg

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Context: Outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain poor. We have spent 10 years investigating an “informed assent” (IA) approach to discussing CPR with chronically ill patients/families. IA is a discussion framework whereby patients extremely unlikely to benefit from CPR are informed that unless they disagree, CPR will not be performed because it will not help achieve their goals, thus removing the burden of decision-making from the patient/family, while they retain an opportunity to disagree. Objectives: Determine the acceptability and efficacy of IA discussions about CPR with older chronically ill patients/families. Methods: This multi-site research occurred in three stages. Stage I determined acceptability of the intervention through focus groups of patients with advanced COPD or malignancy, family members, and physicians. Stage II was an ambulatory pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the IA discussion. Stage III is an ongoing phase 2 RCT of IA versus attention control in in patients with advanced chronic illness. Results: Our qualitative work found the IA approach was acceptable to most patients, families, and physicians. The pilot RCT demonstrated feasibility and showed an increase in participants in the intervention group changing from “full code” to “do not resuscitate” within two weeks after the intervention. However, Stages I and II found that IA is best suited to inpatients. Our phase 2 RCT in older hospitalized seriously ill patients is ongoing; results are pending. Conclusions: IA is a feasible and reasonable approach to CPR discussions in selected patient populations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e621-e632
JournalJournal of Pain and Symptom Management
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2022


  • Code status
  • cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • communication
  • end-of-life
  • seriously ill patients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • General Nursing


Dive into the research topics of 'Evolution of Investigating Informed Assent Discussions about CPR in Seriously Ill Patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this