Alemayehu E, Molloy D W, Guyatt G H, Singer J, Penington G, Basile J, Eisemann M, Finucane P, McMurdo M E, Powell C, Zelmanowicz Alice, Puxty John, Power Christopher, Vitou Louise, Levenson Steven, Turpie Irene
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
CMAJ. 1991 May 1;144(9):1133-8.
To determine what treatment decisions physicians will make when faced with an incompetent elderly patient with life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding and to identify the factors that affect their decisions.
Survey.
Family practice, medical and geriatrics rounds in academic medical centres and community hospitals in seven countries.
Physicians who regularly cared for incompetent elderly patients.
A self-administered questionnaire containing three case vignettes. Each provided the same details on an incompetent elderly patient; however, one gave no information about the wishes of the patient and his family (no directive), the second provided a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) request, and the third included a detailed therapeutic and resuscitative effort chart (DTREC) requesting maximum therapeutic care without admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The four treatment options were supportive care only, limited therapeutic care, maximum therapeutic care without admission to the ICU and maximum care with admission to the ICU.
Treatment decisions varied and were systematically related to age, level of training and country (p less than 0.001). The older physicians and those in family medicine were less likely than the others to choose aggressive treatment options. Brazilian and US physicians were the most aggressive; Australian physicians were the most conservative. The DNR request resulted in a significant decrease in the number of physicians choosing aggressive options (p less than 0.001). The DTREC resulted in a move toward more aggressive treatment, as outlined in the directive (p less than 0.001). Overall, however, about 40% of the physicians chose a level of care different from what had been requested. Furthermore, over 10% would have tried cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite the DNR request.
Treatment of incompetent elderly patients with life-threatening illness varies widely within and between countries. Uniform standards should be developed on the basis of societal values and be communicated to physicians.
确定医生在面对患有危及生命的胃肠道出血且无行为能力的老年患者时会做出何种治疗决策,并找出影响其决策的因素。
调查。
七个国家的学术医疗中心和社区医院的家庭医疗、内科及老年病科查房。
定期照料无行为能力老年患者的医生。
一份包含三个病例 vignette 的自填式问卷。每个 vignette 都提供了关于一名无行为能力老年患者的相同细节;然而,一个未提供患者及其家属意愿的信息(无指示),第二个提供了不进行心肺复苏(DNR)的请求,第三个包含一份详细的治疗和复苏努力图表(DTREC),要求在不入住重症监护病房(ICU)的情况下给予最大程度的治疗护理。四种治疗选择分别是仅支持性护理、有限的治疗护理、不入住 ICU 的最大程度治疗护理以及入住 ICU 的最大程度护理。
治疗决策各不相同,且与年龄、培训水平和国家存在系统性关联(p < 0.001)。年长的医生和家庭医学领域的医生比其他医生选择积极治疗方案的可能性更小。巴西和美国的医生最为积极;澳大利亚的医生最为保守。DNR 请求导致选择积极方案的医生数量显著减少(p < 0.001)。DTREC 导致治疗朝着指令中概述的更积极方向转变(p < 0.001)。然而,总体而言,约40%的医生选择了与所请求的护理水平不同的方案。此外,超过10%的医生尽管收到了 DNR 请求,仍会尝试进行心肺复苏。
在国内和国际上,对患有危及生命疾病的无行为能力老年患者的治疗差异很大。应根据社会价值观制定统一标准并传达给医生。