Do-Not-ResuscitateDecision-Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Teaching Hospital: Lessons Learned for the Future

IF 1.6 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of Aging Research Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.1155/2023/2771149
Mick van de Wiel, Sabrina van Ierssel, Walter Verbrugghe, Veerle Mertens, A. Janssens
{"title":"Do-Not-ResuscitateDecision-Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Teaching Hospital: Lessons Learned for the Future","authors":"Mick van de Wiel, Sabrina van Ierssel, Walter Verbrugghe, Veerle Mertens, A. Janssens","doi":"10.1155/2023/2771149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rationale. Contribute to the understanding of DNR decision-making and conducting end-of-life conversations, about which there is a paucity of data available in the current literature. Aims and Objectives. Assess how the decision-making process to determine a DNR code is implemented in the day-to-day clinical practice in a tertiary teaching hospital. Familiarity with the use of different scores as a possible objective support for DNR decisions and the influence of various elements on a DNR decision was explored. Method. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted between February 2021 and April 2021 for all doctors and doctors in training, working in the Antwerp University Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results. 127 doctors participated in this study. The familiarity with the different scores used in the triage during the COVID-10 pandemic was 51% for the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and 20% for the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Participants indicated that their DNR decision is based on various aspects such as clinical assessment, comorbidities, patient’s wishes, age, prognosis, and functional state. Conclusion. The familiarity with the different scores used during triage assessments is low. The total clinical picture of the patient is needed to make a considered decision, and this total picture of the patient seems to be well encompassed by frailty measurement (CFS). Although many participants indicated that the different scores do not offer much added value compared to their clinical assessment, it can help guide DNR decisions, especially for doctors in training.","PeriodicalId":14933,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aging Research","volume":"10 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aging Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2771149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale. Contribute to the understanding of DNR decision-making and conducting end-of-life conversations, about which there is a paucity of data available in the current literature. Aims and Objectives. Assess how the decision-making process to determine a DNR code is implemented in the day-to-day clinical practice in a tertiary teaching hospital. Familiarity with the use of different scores as a possible objective support for DNR decisions and the influence of various elements on a DNR decision was explored. Method. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted between February 2021 and April 2021 for all doctors and doctors in training, working in the Antwerp University Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results. 127 doctors participated in this study. The familiarity with the different scores used in the triage during the COVID-10 pandemic was 51% for the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and 20% for the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Participants indicated that their DNR decision is based on various aspects such as clinical assessment, comorbidities, patient’s wishes, age, prognosis, and functional state. Conclusion. The familiarity with the different scores used during triage assessments is low. The total clinical picture of the patient is needed to make a considered decision, and this total picture of the patient seems to be well encompassed by frailty measurement (CFS). Although many participants indicated that the different scores do not offer much added value compared to their clinical assessment, it can help guide DNR decisions, especially for doctors in training.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一家教学医院在 COVID-19 大流行期间的 "不急救 "决策:未来的经验教训
理由有助于了解 DNR 决策和进行临终对话的情况,目前文献中有关这方面的数据很少。目的和目标。评估一家三级教学医院在日常临床实践中如何实施决定 DNR 代码的决策过程。探讨使用不同评分作为 DNR 决定的可能客观支持的熟悉程度,以及各种因素对 DNR 决定的影响。方法。在 2021 年 2 月至 2021 年 4 月期间,对 COVID-19 大流行期间在安特卫普大学医院工作的所有医生和受训医生进行了横断面调查研究。研究结果127 名医生参与了此次研究。在 COVID-10 大流行期间,临床虚弱量表 (CFS) 和夏尔森合并症指数 (CCI) 的熟悉程度分别为 51% 和 20%。参与者表示,他们会根据临床评估、并发症、患者意愿、年龄、预后和功能状态等多方面因素做出 DNR 决定。结论是对分诊评估中使用的不同评分的熟悉程度较低。要做出深思熟虑的决定,就必须全面了解病人的临床情况,而虚弱程度测量(CFS)似乎就能很好地反映病人的整体情况。尽管许多与会者表示,与他们的临床评估相比,不同的评分并不能提供多少附加值,但它可以帮助指导 DNR 决定,尤其是对正在接受培训的医生而言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Aging Research
Journal of Aging Research Medicine-Geriatrics and Gerontology
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring Changes in Barriers and Facilitators for Physical Activity during the Retirement Transition: A Qualitative Interview Study Based on the Behavior Change Wheel. Nurses' Perspectives and Understanding of Sarcopenia in a Tertiary Care Hospital. Lack of Intensity Control during an Exercise Program Is Related to a Limited Effect on Variables Responsible for Blood Pressure Regulation in Hypertensive Older Adults. Sleep Quality and Subjective Cognitive Decline among Older Adults: The Mediating Role of Anxiety/Depression and Worries. Effects of Mind-Body Qigong Exercise on Overall Health, Fatigue/Sleep, and Cognition in Older Chinese Immigrants in the US: An Intervention Study with Control.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1