Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):743-50. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c58842.
Little is known about what role physicians take in the decision-making process about life support in intensive care units.
To determine how responsibility is balanced between physicians and surrogates for life support decisions and to empirically develop a framework to describe different models of physician involvement.
Multi-centered study of audio-taped clinician-family conferences with a derivation and validation cohort.
Intensive care units of four hospitals in Seattle, Washington, in 2000 to 2002 and two hospitals in San Francisco, California, in 2006 to 2008.
Four hundred fourteen clinicians and 495 surrogates who were involved in 162 life support decisions.
In the derivation cohort (n = 63 decisions), no clinician inquired about surrogates' preferred role in decision-making. Physicians took one of four distinct roles: 1) informative role (7 of 63) in which the physician provided information about the patient's medical condition, prognosis, and treatment options but did not elicit information about the patient's values, engage in deliberations, or provide a recommendation about whether to continue life support; 2) facilitative role (23 of 63), in which the physician refrained from providing a recommendation but actively guided the surrogate through a process of clarifying the patients' values and applying those values to the decision; 3) collaborative role (32 of 63), in which the physician shared in deliberations with the family and provided a recommendation; and 4) directive role (1 of 63), in which the physician assumed all responsibility for, and informed the family of, the decision. In 10 out of 20 conferences in which surrogates requested a recommendation, the physician refused to provide one. The validation cohort revealed a similar frequency of use of the four roles, and frequent refusal by physicians to provide treatment recommendations.
There is considerable variability in the roles physicians take in decision-making about life support with surrogates but little negotiation of desired roles. We present an empirically derived framework that provides a more comprehensive view of physicians' possible roles.
关于医生在重症监护病房的生命支持决策中扮演什么角色,人们知之甚少。
确定医生和代理人在生命支持决策中的责任如何平衡,并从经验上构建一个描述医生参与不同模式的框架。
在西雅图华盛顿州的四家医院和旧金山加利福尼亚州的两家医院进行的音频记录临床医生-家属会议的多中心研究,包括推导和验证队列。
2000 年至 2002 年在西雅图华盛顿州的四家医院和 2006 年至 2008 年在旧金山加利福尼亚州的两家医院的重症监护病房。
涉及 162 项生命支持决策的 414 名临床医生和 495 名代理人。
在推导队列(n = 63 个决策)中,没有医生询问代理人对决策的偏好角色。医生采取了四种截然不同的角色之一:1)信息角色(63 个决策中的 7 个),其中医生提供有关患者病情、预后和治疗方案的信息,但不询问患者的价值观,不进行审议,也不提供是否继续生命支持的建议;2)促进角色(63 个决策中的 23 个),其中医生避免提供建议,但积极指导代理人澄清患者的价值观,并将这些价值观应用于决策;3)协作角色(63 个决策中的 32 个),其中医生与家属共同审议并提供建议;4)指令角色(63 个决策中的 1 个),其中医生承担所有责任,并向家属告知决策。在 20 次会议中有 10 次,代理人要求提供建议,但医生拒绝提供。验证队列显示了这四个角色的使用频率相似,医生经常拒绝提供治疗建议。
在与代理人就生命支持做出决策时,医生的角色存在很大差异,但很少协商期望的角色。我们提出了一个经验性的框架,提供了一个更全面的医生可能角色的视角。