• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

拯救更多人还是为了多数人的利益?对医生和护士分配 ICU 床位偏好的分析。

Rule of rescue or the good of the many? An analysis of physicians' and nurses' preferences for allocating ICU beds.

机构信息

Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37(7):1210-7. doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2257-6. Epub 2011 Jun 7.

DOI:10.1007/s00134-011-2257-6
PMID:21647719
Abstract

PURPOSE

To examine intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians' willingness to trade off societal benefits in favor of a small chance of rescuing an identifiable critically ill patient.

METHODS

We sent mixed-methods questionnaires to national samples of US ICU clinicians, soliciting their preferences for allocating their last bed to a gravely ill patient with little chance to survive, versus a deceased or dying patient for whom aggressive management could help others through organ donation.

RESULTS

Complete responses were obtained from 684 of 2,206 physicians (31.0%) and 438 of 988 nurses (44.3%); there was no evidence of non-response bias. Physicians were more likely than nurses to adhere to the "rule of rescue" by allocating the last bed to the gravely ill patient (45.9 vs. 32.6%, difference = 13.2%; 95% CI 9.1-17.3%). The magnitude of the social benefit to be obtained through organ donor management (5 or 30 life-years added for transplant recipients) had small and inconsistent effects on clinicians' willingness to prioritize the donor. In qualitative analyses, the most common reason for allocating the last bed to an identifiable patient (identified by 65% of physicians and 75% of nurses) was that clinicians perceived strong obligations to identifiable living patients.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of ICU clinicians forewent substantial social benefits so as to devote resources to an individual patient unlikely to benefit from them. Such allegiance to the rule of rescue suggests challenges for efforts to reform ICU triage practices.

摘要

目的

考察重症监护病房(ICU)临床医生是否愿意权衡社会效益,以换取抢救少数明确病危患者的微小机会。

方法

我们向美国 ICU 临床医生的全国样本发送了混合方法问卷,征求他们对以下两种情况的偏好:将最后一张病床分配给一位几乎没有生存机会的重病患者,还是分配给一位通过积极治疗可以通过器官捐献帮助他人的死亡或濒临死亡的患者。

结果

从 2206 名医生中获得了 684 名(31.0%)和 988 名护士中获得了 438 名(44.3%)的完整回复,没有证据表明存在非回复偏差。医生比护士更倾向于通过将最后一张病床分配给重病患者来遵守“救援规则”(45.9%对 32.6%,差异为 13.2%;95%置信区间为 9.1-17.3%)。通过器官捐献管理获得的社会收益(为移植受者增加 5 或 30 个生命年)的大小对临床医生优先考虑捐献者的意愿有很小且不一致的影响。在定性分析中,将最后一张病床分配给可识别患者(被 65%的医生和 75%的护士识别)的最常见原因是临床医生认为对可识别的存活患者有强烈的义务。

结论

超过三分之一的 ICU 临床医生放弃了大量的社会效益,以便将资源用于不太可能从中受益的个别患者。这种对救援规则的忠诚表明,努力改革 ICU 分诊实践面临挑战。

相似文献

1
Rule of rescue or the good of the many? An analysis of physicians' and nurses' preferences for allocating ICU beds.拯救更多人还是为了多数人的利益?对医生和护士分配 ICU 床位偏好的分析。
Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37(7):1210-7. doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2257-6. Epub 2011 Jun 7.
2
Perceptions of appropriateness of care among European and Israeli intensive care unit nurses and physicians.欧洲和以色列重症监护病房护士和医生对护理适宜性的看法。
JAMA. 2011 Dec 28;306(24):2694-703. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1888.
3
Assessing physicians' and nurses' experience of dying and death in the ICU: development of the CAESAR-P and the CAESAR-N instruments.评估 ICU 中医生和护士对死亡的体验:CAESAR-P 和 CAESAR-N 工具的开发。
Crit Care. 2020 Aug 25;24(1):521. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03191-z.
4
[Investigation and analysis of the development status of critical care medicine in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in 2019].[2019年新疆维吾尔自治区重症医学发展现状调查与分析]
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2020 Jul;32(7):854-860. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20200506-00357.
5
Intensive care physicians' attitudes concerning distribution of intensive care resources. A comparison of Israeli, North American and European cohorts.重症监护医生对重症监护资源分配的态度。以色列、北美和欧洲队列的比较。
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Jun;30(6):1140-3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-004-2273-x. Epub 2004 Apr 6.
6
Perceptions of organ donation after circulatory determination of death among critical care physicians and nurses: a national survey.循环判定死亡后器官捐献在重症监护医师和护士中的认知:一项全国性调查。
Crit Care Med. 2012 Sep;40(9):2595-600. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182590098.
7
Perceptions of Ethical Decision-Making Climate Among Clinicians Working in European and U.S. ICUs: Differences Between Nurses and Physicians.在欧洲和美国 ICU 工作的临床医生对伦理决策氛围的看法:护士与医师之间的差异。
Crit Care Med. 2019 Dec;47(12):1716-1723. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004017.
8
Development of a Canadian deceased donation education program for health professionals: a needs assessment survey.开发加拿大针对卫生专业人员的器官捐献教育计划:需求评估调查。
Can J Anaesth. 2017 Oct;64(10):1037-1047. doi: 10.1007/s12630-017-0882-4. Epub 2017 May 3.
9
Admission to intensive care: A qualitative study of triage and its determinants.入住重症监护病房:分诊及其决定因素的定性研究。
Health Serv Res. 2019 Apr;54(2):474-483. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13076. Epub 2018 Oct 25.
10
Perspectives of physicians and nurses on identifying and treating psychological distress of the critically ill.医生和护士对识别和治疗重症患者心理困扰的看法。
J Crit Care. 2017 Feb;37:106-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.09.008. Epub 2016 Sep 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Association of emergency intensive care unit occupancy due to brain-dead organ donors with ambulance diversion.脑死亡器官捐献者导致的急诊重症监护病房占用与救护车分流的关联。
Sci Rep. 2025 Apr 12;15(1):12633. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-97198-7.
2
Intensive care admission aiming at organ donation. Con.以器官捐献为目的的重症监护病房收治。反对意见。
Intensive Care Med. 2024 Mar;50(3):440-442. doi: 10.1007/s00134-024-07326-6. Epub 2024 Jan 25.
3
Understanding Post-Sepsis Syndrome: How Can Clinicians Help?了解脓毒症后综合征:临床医生如何提供帮助?

本文引用的文献

1
Lottery-based versus fixed incentives to increase clinicians' response to surveys.基于彩票的激励与固定激励对提高临床医生参与调查的反应的比较。
Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct;46(5):1663-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01264.x. Epub 2011 Apr 14.
2
A behavioral and systems view of professionalism.一种行为和系统视角下的专业性。
JAMA. 2010 Dec 22;304(24):2732-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1864.
3
Critical care medicine in the United States 2000-2005: an analysis of bed numbers, occupancy rates, payer mix, and costs.美国 2000-2005 年的重症监护医学:对床位数、入住率、付费者构成比和费用的分析。
Infect Drug Resist. 2023 Sep 29;16:6493-6511. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S390947. eCollection 2023.
4
Refusal of beds and triage of patients admitted to intensive care units in Brazil: a cross-sectional national survey.巴西重症监护病房收治患者的拒诊和分诊:一项全国性横断面调查。
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2022 Oct-Dec;34(4):484-491. doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20220264-pt.
5
Physicians' Acceptance of Triage Guidelines in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.COVID-19 大流行背景下医生对分诊指南的接受度:一项定性研究。
Front Public Health. 2021 Jul 30;9:695231. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.695231. eCollection 2021.
6
Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE).非临床因素对重症监护病房收治决策的影响:一项基于病例 vignette 的随机试验(V-TRIAGE)
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2021 Apr-Jun;33(2):219-230. doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20210029.
7
[Overtreatment in intensive care medicine-recognition, designation, and avoidance : Position paper of the Ethics Section of the DIVI and the Ethics section of the DGIIN].[重症医学中的过度治疗——识别、界定与避免:德国重症与急救医学协会伦理委员会及德国重症监护与感染病学会伦理委员会立场文件]
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2021 May;116(4):281-294. doi: 10.1007/s00063-021-00794-4. Epub 2021 Mar 1.
8
Policy Challenges for Organ Allocation in an Era of "Precision Medicine".“精准医学”时代器官分配面临的政策挑战
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2020 Mar 20;7:2054358120912655. doi: 10.1177/2054358120912655. eCollection 2020.
9
Triage and Ongoing Care for Critically Ill Patients in the Emergency Department: Results from a National Survey of Emergency Physicians.急诊科危重症患者的分诊和持续治疗:一项针对急诊医师的全国性调查结果。
West J Emerg Med. 2020 Feb 24;21(2):330-335. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2019.11.43547.
10
Visit to intensive care of 2050.2050年的重症监护探访。
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Jan;43(1):97-100. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4525-y. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
Crit Care Med. 2010 Jan;38(1):65-71. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b090d0.
4
The future of critical care.重症监护的未来。
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009 Aug;15(4):308-13. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32832e4550.
5
Perceptions of cost constraints, resource limitations, and rationing in United States intensive care units: results of a national survey.美国重症监护病房对成本限制、资源限制和配给的认知:一项全国性调查的结果
Crit Care Med. 2008 Feb;36(2):471-6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0B013E3181629511.
6
An empirical examination of the antecedents of the acceptance of donation after cardiac death by health care professionals.医疗保健专业人员对心脏死亡后器官捐献接受度影响因素的实证研究。
Am J Transplant. 2008 Jan;8(1):193-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02019.x. Epub 2007 Oct 31.
7
Development of an e-mail database of US intensive care physicians.美国重症监护医师电子邮件数据库的开发。
J Crit Care. 2007 Mar;22(1):28-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2006.12.006.
8
Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory.卫生服务研究的定性数据分析:构建分类法、主题和理论。
Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x.
9
Rationing and critical care medicine.医疗资源分配与重症医学
Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2 Suppl):S102-5. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000252922.55244.FB.
10
Tough questions, even harder answers.问题棘手,答案更难。
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Nov;21(11):1209-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00617.x.