Suppr超能文献

重症监护病房的资源分配

Rationing in the intensive care unit.

作者信息

Truog Robert D, Brock Dan W, Cook Deborah J, Danis Marion, Luce John M, Rubenfeld Gordon D, Levy Mitchell M

机构信息

Professor of Medical Ethics and Anesthesia (Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Senior Associate in Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2006 Apr;34(4):958-63; quiz 971. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000206116.10417.D9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Critical care services represent a large and growing proportion of health care expenditures. Limiting the magnitude of these costs while maintaining a just allocation of these services will require rationing. We define rationing as "the allocation of healthcare resources in the face of limited availability, which necessarily means that beneficial interventions are withheld from some individuals." Although some have maintained that rationing of health care is unethical, we argue that rationing is not only unavoidable but essential to ensuring the ethical distribution of medical goods and services.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Intensivists have little to guide them in the rationing of critical care services. We have developed a taxonomy of the rationing choices faced by intensivists as a framework for ethical analysis. This taxonomy divides rationing decisions into three categories. First are those rationing decisions that may be justified by external constraints (such as not prescribing a potentially beneficial medication because it is not available on the hospital formulary). Second are those that may be justified by reference to clinical guidelines (as, for example, not prescribing a potentially beneficial medication because a valid guideline recommends treatment with a less expensive alternative). Third are those that are justified by individual clinical judgment (such as choosing which of two patients should be admitted into the last ICU bed, in the absence of any evidence-based guidance). Judgments made on the basis of clinical judgment deserve particular scrutiny, since they may mask unethical prejudices or bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this taxonomy does not by itself determine which decisions are ethical, it does clarify the type of evidence that is appropriate to supporting the decision that is made. Additional work is needed to elucidate how both empirical evidence and ethical analysis can further inform the rationing decisions that arise in the taxonomy described here.

摘要

背景

重症监护服务在医疗保健支出中占比很大且呈增长趋势。在维持这些服务合理分配的同时限制成本规模将需要进行资源配给。我们将资源配给定义为“在资源有限的情况下对医疗资源进行分配,这必然意味着一些有益的干预措施不会提供给某些个体”。尽管有些人认为医疗保健资源配给是不道德的,但我们认为资源配给不仅不可避免,而且对于确保医疗产品和服务的道德分配至关重要。

主要发现

在重症监护服务的资源配给方面,重症监护医生几乎没有什么指导原则。我们已经制定了重症监护医生面临的资源配给选择分类法,作为伦理分析的框架。这种分类法将资源配给决策分为三类。第一类是那些可能因外部限制而合理的资源配给决策(例如,由于医院处方集上没有某种潜在有益的药物而不开具)。第二类是那些可以参照临床指南证明合理的决策(例如,由于有效的指南推荐使用成本较低的替代药物治疗,因此不开具某种潜在有益的药物)。第三类是那些基于个体临床判断合理的决策(例如,在没有任何循证指导的情况下,选择两名患者中的哪一位入住最后一张重症监护病床)。基于临床判断做出的决策值得特别审查,因为它们可能掩盖不道德的偏见。

结论

尽管这种分类法本身并不能确定哪些决策是符合伦理的,但它确实阐明了支持所做决策的适当证据类型。还需要进一步开展工作,以阐明实证证据和伦理分析如何能够进一步为本文所述分类法中出现的资源配给决策提供信息。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验