4.0 Article

International differences in end-of-life attitudes in the intensive care unit -: Results of a survey

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 165, 期 17, 页码 1970-1975

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.17.1970

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Important international differences exist in attitudes toward end-of-life issues in the intensive care unit. Methods: A simple questionnaire survey was sent by e-mail to, participants at an international meeting on intensive care medicine. Respondents were asked to choose 1 of 3 to 5 possible answers for each of 4 questions related to the treatment of a hypothetical patient in a vegetative state due to anoxic encephalopathy after cardiac arrest with no family and no advance directives. Results: From 3494 valid addresses, 1961 complete questionnaires (56%) were received from 21 countries. Sixty-two percent of physicians from Northern and Central Europe said they involved nurses in end-of-life discussions compared with only 32% of physicians in Southern Europe, 38% in Brazil, 39% in Japan, and 29% in the United States (P <.001 for all comparisons). Written do-not-resuscitate orders were preferred in Northern and Central Europe, whereas oral orders took preference in Southern Europe, Turkey, and Brazil. One third of Japanese physicians said that they would not apply do-not-resuscitate orders. Most participants from Japan, Turkey, the United States, Southern Europe, and Brazil chose to treat the hypothetical patient with antibiotics if he/she developed septic shock, whereas in Northern Europe, Central Europe, Canada, and Australia, terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation and extubation were the more commonly chosen responses. Conclusions: In countries where intensive care medicine is relatively well. developed, considerable differences remain in physicians' attitudes toward end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. Substantial work remains if an international consensus on these issues is to be reached.

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

4.0
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