{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024251069900142655, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.754098360655738, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In long-term care, the "R" in CPR is not for resurrection.

OBJECTIVE
To determine whether the concept of the "R" in CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) not meaning resurrection as opposed to resuscitation is a useful explanation to families of patients in long-term care why CPR may not be recommended.


METHODS
A review of the relevant literature and such ideas as futility was used to develop the conceptual basis for the discussion.


CONCLUSION
There is enough evidence to support the position that for the frail, elderly, long-term care patient, the concept of resurrection rather than resuscitation can be a useful explanation to families why CPR should not be attempted in most circumstances.