4.4 Article

End of life management of adult patients in an Australian metropolitan intensive care unit: A retrospective observational study

期刊

AUSTRALIAN CRITICAL CARE
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 13-19

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2009.10.002

关键词

Intensive care; Death; End of life; Communication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Death in the intensive care unit is often predictable. End of life management is often discussed and initiated when futility of care appears evident. Respect for patients wishes, dignity in death, and family involvement in the decision-making process is optimal. This goal may often be elusive. Purpose: Our purpose was to review the end of life processes and family involvement within our Unit. Methods: We conducted a chart audit of all deaths in our 10 bed Unit over a 12-month period, reviewing patient demographics, diagnosis on admission, patient acuity, expectation of death and not-for-resuscitation status. Discussions with the family, treatments withheld and withdrawn and extubation practices were documented. The presence of family or next-of-kin at the time of death, the time to death after withdrawal of therapy and family concerns were recorded. Results: There were 70 patients with a mean age of 69 years. Death was expected in 60 patients (86%) and not-for-resuscitation was documented in 58 cases (85%). Family discussions were held in 63 cases (90%) and treatment was withdrawn in 34 deaths (49%). After withdrawal of therapies, 31 patients (44%) died within 6h. Ventilatory support was withdrawn in 24 cases (36%). Family members were present at the time of death in 46 cases (66%). Family concerns were documented about the end of life care in only 1 case (1.4%). Conclusion: Our data suggests that death in our Unit was often predictable and that end of life management was a consultative process. (C) 2009 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Australia (a division of Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd). All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据