重症监护医师对暂停或撤销治疗决定的伦理认知:临床伦理实证调查。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of critical care Pub Date : 2024-10-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154931
Marta Spranzi PhD , Sarah Morinet MD , Nicolas Foureur MD
{"title":"重症监护医师对暂停或撤销治疗决定的伦理认知:临床伦理实证调查。","authors":"Marta Spranzi PhD ,&nbsp;Sarah Morinet MD ,&nbsp;Nicolas Foureur MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intensive care professional societies have issued policy recommendations regarding decisions to withhold and/or withdraw treatment (Wh&amp;Wd) that consistently classify them as ethically equivalent and ethically neutral. However, on the ground they are often perceived as “active” and morally problematic. Moreover, recent studies have highlighted personal “variability” in the way such decisions are made. Therefore, it seemed necessary to explore intensivists' different ethical perceptions about Wh&amp;Wd decisions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A qualitative retrospective and multicentered study was conducted in seven intensive care units belonging to the Paris Hospital Trust (AP-HP), which involved in-depth interviews with 44 intensivists of different ages and levels of professional experience. An inductive (“grounded theory”-inspired), multidisciplinary clinical ethics approach was used that aimed at eliciting and retrieving practitioners' ethical intuitions about different Wh&amp;Wd decisions. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a “thematic analysis” approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Practitioners' perceptions of Wh&amp;Wd decisions vary along two continuous dimensions: active/passive and ethically problematic/unproblematic. Three groups have been identified: those who consider Wh&amp;Wd decisions 1) as passive and unproblematic, 2) as active and problematic, and 3) as active and unproblematic. More interestingly, these groups can be differently characterized with respect to three other ethically relevant considerations: the role of consensus during the collegial decision-making procedure, the difference between withholding and withdrawing decisions, and the definition of one's own overarching professional goal.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The study results allow for recognition of intensivists' moral distress about Wh&amp;Wd decisions and open new perspectives to deal with their deep-rooted variability, most notably by working on the rationale and format of the collegial decision-making procedure.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of critical care","volume":"85 ","pages":"Article 154931"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intensivists' ethical perceptions about decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment: A clinical ethics empirical investigation\",\"authors\":\"Marta Spranzi PhD ,&nbsp;Sarah Morinet MD ,&nbsp;Nicolas Foureur MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154931\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intensive care professional societies have issued policy recommendations regarding decisions to withhold and/or withdraw treatment (Wh&amp;Wd) that consistently classify them as ethically equivalent and ethically neutral. However, on the ground they are often perceived as “active” and morally problematic. Moreover, recent studies have highlighted personal “variability” in the way such decisions are made. Therefore, it seemed necessary to explore intensivists' different ethical perceptions about Wh&amp;Wd decisions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A qualitative retrospective and multicentered study was conducted in seven intensive care units belonging to the Paris Hospital Trust (AP-HP), which involved in-depth interviews with 44 intensivists of different ages and levels of professional experience. An inductive (“grounded theory”-inspired), multidisciplinary clinical ethics approach was used that aimed at eliciting and retrieving practitioners' ethical intuitions about different Wh&amp;Wd decisions. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a “thematic analysis” approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Practitioners' perceptions of Wh&amp;Wd decisions vary along two continuous dimensions: active/passive and ethically problematic/unproblematic. Three groups have been identified: those who consider Wh&amp;Wd decisions 1) as passive and unproblematic, 2) as active and problematic, and 3) as active and unproblematic. More interestingly, these groups can be differently characterized with respect to three other ethically relevant considerations: the role of consensus during the collegial decision-making procedure, the difference between withholding and withdrawing decisions, and the definition of one's own overarching professional goal.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The study results allow for recognition of intensivists' moral distress about Wh&amp;Wd decisions and open new perspectives to deal with their deep-rooted variability, most notably by working on the rationale and format of the collegial decision-making procedure.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of critical care\",\"volume\":\"85 \",\"pages\":\"Article 154931\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of critical care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124004180\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of critical care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124004180","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重症监护专业协会已就暂停和/或撤消治疗(Wh&Wd)的决定发布了政策建议,并一致将其归类为伦理等同和伦理中性的决定。然而,在实际情况中,它们往往被认为是 "主动的",在道德上是有问题的。此外,最近的研究还强调了在做出此类决定时个人的 "可变性"。因此,似乎有必要探讨一下重症监护医师对 Wh&Wd 决定的不同伦理看法:在隶属于巴黎医院信托基金会(AP-HP)的七个重症监护病房开展了一项定性回顾性多中心研究,对 44 名不同年龄和不同专业经验水平的重症监护医师进行了深入访谈。研究采用了归纳法("基础理论 "启发)、多学科临床伦理方法,旨在激发和检索从业人员对不同Wh&Wd决策的伦理直觉。采用 "主题分析 "方法对访谈记录进行了分析:结果:从业人员对 WH&Wd 决策的看法有两个连续的维度:主动/被动和伦理问题/无问题。结果发现了三类人:1) 认为 Wh&Wd 决策是被动的、没有问题的;2) 认为是主动的、有问题的;3) 认为是主动的、没有问题的。更有趣的是,在其他三个与伦理相关的考虑因素方面,这些群体也有不同的特点:在共同决策程序中达成共识的作用、暂不做出决定与撤回决定之间的区别,以及对自身总体专业目标的定义:研究结果使我们认识到了重症监护医师在Wh&Wd决策方面的道德困扰,并为解决其根深蒂固的多变性开辟了新的视角,其中最主要的是通过研究共同决策程序的原理和形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Intensivists' ethical perceptions about decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment: A clinical ethics empirical investigation

Background

Intensive care professional societies have issued policy recommendations regarding decisions to withhold and/or withdraw treatment (Wh&Wd) that consistently classify them as ethically equivalent and ethically neutral. However, on the ground they are often perceived as “active” and morally problematic. Moreover, recent studies have highlighted personal “variability” in the way such decisions are made. Therefore, it seemed necessary to explore intensivists' different ethical perceptions about Wh&Wd decisions.

Methods

A qualitative retrospective and multicentered study was conducted in seven intensive care units belonging to the Paris Hospital Trust (AP-HP), which involved in-depth interviews with 44 intensivists of different ages and levels of professional experience. An inductive (“grounded theory”-inspired), multidisciplinary clinical ethics approach was used that aimed at eliciting and retrieving practitioners' ethical intuitions about different Wh&Wd decisions. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a “thematic analysis” approach.

Results

Practitioners' perceptions of Wh&Wd decisions vary along two continuous dimensions: active/passive and ethically problematic/unproblematic. Three groups have been identified: those who consider Wh&Wd decisions 1) as passive and unproblematic, 2) as active and problematic, and 3) as active and unproblematic. More interestingly, these groups can be differently characterized with respect to three other ethically relevant considerations: the role of consensus during the collegial decision-making procedure, the difference between withholding and withdrawing decisions, and the definition of one's own overarching professional goal.

Conclusion

The study results allow for recognition of intensivists' moral distress about Wh&Wd decisions and open new perspectives to deal with their deep-rooted variability, most notably by working on the rationale and format of the collegial decision-making procedure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of critical care
Journal of critical care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.70%
发文量
237
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Critical Care, the official publication of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (WFSICCM), is a leading international, peer-reviewed journal providing original research, review articles, tutorials, and invited articles for physicians and allied health professionals involved in treating the critically ill. The Journal aims to improve patient care by furthering understanding of health systems research and its integration into clinical practice. The Journal will include articles which discuss: All aspects of health services research in critical care System based practice in anesthesiology, perioperative and critical care medicine The interface between anesthesiology, critical care medicine and pain Integrating intraoperative management in preparation for postoperative critical care management and recovery Optimizing patient management, i.e., exploring the interface between evidence-based principles or clinical insight into management and care of complex patients The team approach in the OR and ICU System-based research Medical ethics Technology in medicine Seminars discussing current, state of the art, and sometimes controversial topics in anesthesiology, critical care medicine, and professional education Residency Education.
期刊最新文献
What every intensivist should know about ciprofol Emergency critical care - life-saving critical care before ICU admission: A consensus statement of a Group of European Experts Electrical impedance tomography to set high pressure in time-controlled adaptive ventilation Editorial Board Target attainment of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin in critically ill patients and its association with 28-day mortality
×
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