Distinction must be made between “bad” and “good” CPR.
The first commercially licensed American television channel, station WRGB, began broadcasting on July 2, 1928. Since then, the number of TV channels in the U.S. has ballooned to almost 2,000. There are all kinds of TV channels: weather channels, sports channels, movie channels, and more. But there is no cardiopulmonary resucitation (CPR) channel – yet.
Why would we need a CPR channel in America? Because America is in the midst of an epidemic of futile CPR. Because patients and families who call for uncalled-for CPR very often don’t know for what they are calling. Because there is good CPR and there is bad CPR: CPR that can help and CPR that can harm.
Good CPR is literally livesaving. Early advocates of CPR designed it to save “the heart too good to die.” CPR is a coordinated sequence of procedures that can rescue patients whose lives are unexpectedly threatened. CPR can rescue them from the clutches of death and return them to life. Good CPR does not always have a happy ending, but good CPR is good because it offers the chance of a happy ending.
Bad CPR is CPR on patients with hearts too bad to live, and it is bad because it offers no chance of a happy ending. Bad CPR attempts to rescue patients at the end of their lives who have been approaching death for some time. There is no hope of rescuing them from death, because dying is already part of their lives – they are simply beyond the reach of a CPR rescue.
How does bad CPR end? In a number of bad ways, all of them grim:
But how do you tell good CPR from bad? You can’t always, but you can mostly. Bad CPR ends in certain death in certain groups: patients with heart muscle so weakened that it is exhausted just by normal beating, patients with lungs so disfigured that even doing nothing is difficult, patients with cancer so extensive that vast swaths of their bodies are malignant, and patients so frail that gravity has become a disease. So why would anyone want bad CPR? Simple: they don’t know or won’t accept it is bad. Either they haven’t been told it’s bad, or when they are told, they can’t or won’t believe it.
Not being told by physicians happens in two ways. The passive version is unspoken; CPR is not mentioned. The active version involves phrases such as “would you like us to do CPR on your mother?”
Both versions want to avoid the topic of death, the first by ignoring CPR as worthy of discussion, the second by misrepresenting CPR as a worthy option. In both cases, the physician refuses to acknowledge death as an outcome. Physicians who avoid conversions about death just don’t, can’t, or won’t talk about it.
But what about families who are told CPR is bad, but still insist on it? Most do it because they won’t accept that it’s bad, so if talking can’t always persuade them, what can?
Well, apparently CPR videos can persuade many. A recent article in The Journal of Hospital Medicine reports a significant change of mind about choosing CPR and intubation after patients viewed an “informational video:”
The results were striking: less than half chose CPR after viewing the video (a kind of CPR infomercial) compared with those not shown the video. Similarly, three times as many chose a “DNR/DNI” (do not resuscitate/do not intubate) status as the non-viewers. Impressive news, but it’s not really new news, as similar studies have reported similar findings for the last 10 years.
So if the published data supports a “WCPR” channel, why don’t we have one? Perhaps because of what is playing on all the other TV channels.
In what may be the only article ever published in the New England Journal of Medicine wherein all the research was done in front of a television, the authors of the 1996 article Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Television watched a whole year’s worth of the then-popular medical TV shows “ER,” “Chicago Hope,” and “Rescue 911.” This was published 21 years ago, before “I read it on the Internet” replaced “I saw it on TV” as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
The study reported a number of findings. First, the TV CPR depictions were unrealistically depicted. CPR was effectively “airbrushed” – no needles anxiously probing for veins to cannulate, no laryngoscopes desperately searching for vocal cords to intubate, no fingers frantically handling ampules and syringes. There was no mucus, no vomit, no blood. Second, an astounding 75 percent of TV patients survived CPR, which is significantly greater than the survival rates in even in the most ideal real-life situations: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199606133342406
Those who have participated in CPRs know that no amount of makeup can mimic the color that replaces the living color of a patient’s face when CPR fails. And no directors or actors can ever fully accurately recreate the scene of the hushed voices and the flushed faces after the last words of a futile CPR are spoken: “let’s call it.”
The cost of failed CPR is devastating to all – the patient, their loved ones, and their CPR caregivers. Increasingly, CPR is being recognized as a cause of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in those who participate in futile CPRs. CPR is a punishing procedure. Perhaps even more punishing is the dread of the bedside nurses who care daily for patients who they know in their hearts will not survive CPR. They know that calling a “code blue” for these patients will be fatal.
There are several states with “futile care” laws, through which various combinations of physician opinions can override the patient’s or family’s wish for “futile” CPR. But in most states, futility isn’t illegal, so some doctors have devised dilatory practices to partially “honor” insistence for bad CPR. There is the infamous CPR pantomime known as the “slow code,” which isn’t really CPR. There is the ineffective “medications but no compressions” CPR, which isn’t really CPR. Finally, there is the guaranteed-to-fail “resuscitation without intubation,” which isn’t even resuscitation. Faced with bad CPR, some physicians would rather fake it than take it head-on.
So, do we need CPR videos? It would seem that the facts and the literature indicate that we do. But do we need “CPR TV?” Well, maybe we just need more CPR talk radio, because the CPR channels in most doctors’ offices show only silent movies. Successful videos reflect mostly unattempted conversations about futile CPR. We need early and frequent conversations about dying, before it the lives of the sick and fear replaces reason. Death should never be a surprise ending to a fatal illness.
We need to talk and act like dying is just as much a part of life as birth is. Being a baby and being a corpse are the bookends of all lives. For those with “hearts too good to die,” we should do CPR with all our medical might. It is the purpose of medicine to prevent preventable death. It is also the purpose of medicine to prevent preventable suffering. When death is inevitable, we should attempt with all our medical might to comfort those last breaths of our patients and the loved ones who surround them.
Futile CPR – CPR medically preordained to fail – is worthless punishment that leaves behind worthless suffering. No one should be punished for dying, but some still are. CPR videos are already playing in a few hospitals, and who knows, “The CPR Channel” may be next.
But if CPR TV goes on the air, it needs to be a talk show.
It’s no secret to any of us that there has been quite a bit of recent disagreement between the opposing sides of the political aisle
I’m going to skip over the topic of the hour with the government shutdown and address two actions the federal government has taken in the
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
