Suppr超能文献

临床伦理委员会中对患者病例的讨论有帮助吗?

Is the discussion of patient cases in clinical ethics-committees useful?

作者信息

Kalager Guro, Førde Reidun, Pedersen Reidar

机构信息

Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Postbox 1130 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2011 Jan 21;131(2):118-21. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.10.0183.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

All health enterprises in Norway today have at least one clinical ethics committee (CEC). One of the aims is to give advice and to counsel the hospital staff on ethical issues. As part of the quality assurance of this work, we wanted to find out if clinicians have benefited from these committees in individual cases.

MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

The local committees were requested to distribute a questionnaire to all clinicians who had submitted a case to the committee during the previous 18 months. The survey was anonymous. Out of the 86 questionnaires that were distributed, 43 (50%) were returned to the Centre for Medical Ethics.

RESULTS

The majority of clinicians had a number of reasons for contacting the committee. The most usual reason was the desire to have a broad consultation on a case (70%), which was regarded as useful. The most common issue discussed was limiting the treatment of a seriously ill patient (56%), the will/wishes of the next-of-kin (40%) and patient autonomy (37%). The committee gave advice in 50% of the cases. Thirty-eight percent of the consultations resulted in practical consequences, including the discontinuation of treatment in six cases.

INTERPRETATION

Because of the low response percentage, the results must be interpreted with caution. The work of the committees is generally evaluated as useful, and the consultations can have practical consequences. However, it is challenging to make this work better known among clinicians and to conduct quality assurance.

摘要

背景

如今挪威所有的医疗企业都至少设有一个临床伦理委员会(CEC)。其目的之一是就伦理问题为医院工作人员提供建议和咨询。作为这项工作质量保证的一部分,我们想了解临床医生在个别案例中是否从这些委员会中受益。

材料与方法

要求地方委员会向在过去18个月内向该委员会提交过案例的所有临床医生分发一份问卷。该调查是匿名的。在分发的86份问卷中,有43份(50%)被返还至医学伦理中心。

结果

大多数临床医生有多种联系委员会的理由。最常见的理由是希望就某一案例进行广泛咨询(70%),且这被认为是有用的。讨论最多的问题是限制对重症患者的治疗(56%)、近亲的意愿/愿望(40%)以及患者自主权(37%)。委员会在50%的案例中提供了建议。38%的咨询产生了实际后果,包括6例停止治疗的情况。

解读

由于回复率较低,对结果的解读必须谨慎。委员会的工作总体上被认为是有用的,且咨询可能会产生实际后果。然而,要让临床医生更了解这项工作并进行质量保证具有挑战性。

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