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 , Sarah Morinet MD , 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&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.</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&Wd decisions. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a “thematic analysis” approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</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 , Sarah Morinet MD , 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&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.</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&Wd decisions. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a “thematic analysis” approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</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}
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.
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.