Public and Clinician Perspectives on Ventilator Withdrawal in Vegetative State Following Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Vignette Survey.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Korean Medical Science Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e242
Shin Hye Yoo,Jung Lee,In Gyu Song,So Yeon Jeon,Min Sun Kim,Hye Yoon Park
{"title":"Public and Clinician Perspectives on Ventilator Withdrawal in Vegetative State Following Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Vignette Survey.","authors":"Shin Hye Yoo,Jung Lee,In Gyu Song,So Yeon Jeon,Min Sun Kim,Hye Yoon Park","doi":"10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThe vegetative state (VS) after severe acute brain injury (SABI) is associated with significant prognostic uncertainty and poor long-term functional outcomes. However, it is generally distinguished from imminent death and is exempt from the Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Act in Korea. Here, we aimed to examine the perspectives of the general population (GP) and clinicians regarding decisions on mechanical ventilator withdrawal in patients in a VS after SABI.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nA cross-sectional survey was undertaken, utilizing a self-reported online questionnaire based on a case vignette. Nationally selected by quota sampling, the GP comprised 500 individuals aged 20 to 69 years. There were 200 doctors from a tertiary university hospital in the clinician sample. Participants were asked what they thought about mechanical ventilator withdrawal in patients in VS 2 months and 3 years after SABI.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nTwo months after SABI in the case, 79% of the GP and 83.5% of clinicians had positive attitudes toward mechanical ventilator withdrawal. In the GP, attitudes were associated with spirituality, household income, religion, the number of household members. On the other hand, clinicians' attitudes were related to their experience of completing advance directives (AD) and making decisions about LST. In this case, 3 years after SABI, 92% of the GP and 94% of clinicians were more accepting of ventilator withdrawal compared to previous responses, based on the assumption that the patient had written AD. However, it appeared that the proportion of positive responses to ventilator withdrawal decreased when the patients had only verbal expressions (82% of the GP; 75.5% of clinicians) or had not previously expressed an opinion regarding LST (58% of the GP; 39.5% of clinicians).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nMore than three quarters of both the GP and clinicians had positive opinions regarding ventilator withdrawal in patients in a VS after SABI, which was reinforced with time and the presence of AD. Legislative adjustments are needed to ensure that previous wishes for those patients are more respected and reflected in treatment decisions.","PeriodicalId":16249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","volume":"12 1","pages":"e242"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e242","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND The vegetative state (VS) after severe acute brain injury (SABI) is associated with significant prognostic uncertainty and poor long-term functional outcomes. However, it is generally distinguished from imminent death and is exempt from the Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Act in Korea. Here, we aimed to examine the perspectives of the general population (GP) and clinicians regarding decisions on mechanical ventilator withdrawal in patients in a VS after SABI. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was undertaken, utilizing a self-reported online questionnaire based on a case vignette. Nationally selected by quota sampling, the GP comprised 500 individuals aged 20 to 69 years. There were 200 doctors from a tertiary university hospital in the clinician sample. Participants were asked what they thought about mechanical ventilator withdrawal in patients in VS 2 months and 3 years after SABI. RESULTS Two months after SABI in the case, 79% of the GP and 83.5% of clinicians had positive attitudes toward mechanical ventilator withdrawal. In the GP, attitudes were associated with spirituality, household income, religion, the number of household members. On the other hand, clinicians' attitudes were related to their experience of completing advance directives (AD) and making decisions about LST. In this case, 3 years after SABI, 92% of the GP and 94% of clinicians were more accepting of ventilator withdrawal compared to previous responses, based on the assumption that the patient had written AD. However, it appeared that the proportion of positive responses to ventilator withdrawal decreased when the patients had only verbal expressions (82% of the GP; 75.5% of clinicians) or had not previously expressed an opinion regarding LST (58% of the GP; 39.5% of clinicians). CONCLUSION More than three quarters of both the GP and clinicians had positive opinions regarding ventilator withdrawal in patients in a VS after SABI, which was reinforced with time and the presence of AD. Legislative adjustments are needed to ensure that previous wishes for those patients are more respected and reflected in treatment decisions.
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
公众和临床医生对严重急性脑损伤后植物状态下撤除呼吸机的看法:小故事调查。
背景严重急性脑损伤(SABI)后的植物状态(VS)与预后的不确定性和长期功能预后不良有关。然而,在韩国,植物人状态一般与濒死状态区分开来,并且不受《生命维持治疗(LST)决定法》的约束。在此,我们旨在研究普通人群(GP)和临床医生对 SABI 后 VS 患者撤除机械呼吸机决定的看法。方法我们利用基于病例小故事的自我报告在线问卷进行了横断面调查。通过配额抽样在全国范围内选取了 500 名年龄在 20 岁至 69 岁之间的全科医生。临床医生样本中有 200 名来自一所三级大学医院的医生。结果在病例 SABI 两个月后,79% 的全科医生和 83.5% 的临床医生对撤除机械呼吸机持积极态度。全科医生的态度与精神信仰、家庭收入、宗教信仰和家庭成员数量有关。另一方面,临床医生的态度与他们完成预先医疗指示(AD)和做出 LST 决定的经验有关。在本病例中,与之前的答复相比,在 SABI 3 年后,92% 的全科医生和 94% 的临床医生更能接受撤除呼吸机,其依据是假设患者已书写了预嘱。然而,当患者仅有口头表达(82% 的全科医生;75.5% 的临床医生)或之前未就 LST 表达过意见(58% 的全科医生;39.5% 的临床医生)时,对撤除呼吸机的积极反应比例似乎有所下降。需要对立法进行调整,以确保这些患者之前的意愿在治疗决策中得到更多尊重和反映。
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 Korean Medical Science
Journal of Korean Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) is an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal of medicine published weekly in English. The Journal’s publisher is the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), Korean Medical Association (KMA). JKMS aims to publish evidence-based, scientific research articles from various disciplines of the medical sciences. The Journal welcomes articles of general interest to medical researchers especially when they contain original information. Articles on the clinical evaluation of drugs and other therapies, epidemiologic studies of the general population, studies on pathogenic organisms and toxic materials, and the toxicities and adverse effects of therapeutics are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Current Status of Co-Ordering of C-Reactive Protein and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Testing in Korea. Diagnostic Value of Sternocleidomastoid Muscle Hemorrhage on Clavicular Periosteum in Hanging Deaths. Happiness and Its Association With Suicide Ideation and Attempt in Korea: The Roles of Socio-Environmental, Psychological, and Health-Related Factors. In This Issue on 18-November-2024. Letter to the Editor: Before Characterising Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Viral and Immunologic Parameters, Alternative Causes of Their Increase Must Be Ruled Out.
×
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