Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2012 Sep;40(9):2595-600. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182590098.
We sought to identify factors related to critical care physicians' and nurses' willingness to help manage potential donors after circulatory determination of death, and to elicit opinions on the presence of role conflict in donors after circulatory determination of death and its impact on end-of-life care.
Randomized trial administered by Web or post of four donors after circulatory determination of death vignettes. Response rates were 31.0% and 44.3%, respectively.
Two thousand two hundred and six academic inten-sive care unit physicians and 988 intensive care unit nurses in the United States.
Majorities of intensive care unit physicians (72.5%; 95% confidence interval 69.2-75.9) and nurses (74.3%; 95% confidence interval 70.2-78.5) believed they should help manage potential donors after circulatory determination of death. 14.7% (95% confidence interval 12.0-17.4) of physicians and 14.3% (95% confidence interval 11.0-17.6) of nurses believed that management of donors after circulatory determination of death would create professional role conflicts. 33.8% (95% confidence interval 30.0-37.4) of physicians and 55.1% (95% confidence interval 50.3-59.7) of nurses believed that preserving opportunities for donors after circulatory determination of death could improve end-of-life care. More favorable views of donors after circulatory determination of death were provided by clinicians randomly assigned to vignettes depicting donors with previously denoted preferences for organ donation; similar effects were not introduced by vignettes in which surrogates actively initiated donation discussions.
These findings suggest that critical care physicians and nurses are generally supportive of managing donors after circulatory determination of death, particularly when patients were registered organ donors. However, minorities of clinicians harbor concerns regarding conflicts of interest, and many are uncertain of the practice's impact on end-of-life care.
我们旨在确定与重症监护医师和护士在循环判定死亡后协助潜在供体管理相关的因素,并就循环判定死亡后供体中存在的角色冲突及其对临终关怀的影响征求意见。
通过 Web 或四个循环判定死亡后供体情景的帖子进行随机试验。回复率分别为 31.0%和 44.3%。
美国 2206 名学术重症监护病房医师和 988 名重症监护病房护士。
大多数重症监护病房医师(72.5%;95%置信区间 69.2-75.9)和护士(74.3%;95%置信区间 70.2-78.5)认为他们应该协助管理循环判定死亡后的潜在供体。14.7%(95%置信区间 12.0-17.4)的医师和 14.3%(95%置信区间 11.0-17.6)的护士认为管理循环判定死亡后的供体将产生专业角色冲突。33.8%(95%置信区间 30.0-37.4)的医师和 55.1%(95%置信区间 50.3-59.7)的护士认为保留循环判定死亡后供体的机会可以改善临终关怀。对随机分配到描述具有预先表示的器官捐献意愿的供体的情景的医师和护士提供了对循环判定死亡后供体的更有利的看法;类似的影响并没有通过情景引入,其中代理人主动发起了捐赠讨论。
这些发现表明,重症监护医师和护士普遍支持管理循环判定死亡后的供体,特别是当患者是注册器官捐献者时。然而,少数临床医生对利益冲突表示担忧,许多人对该实践对临终关怀的影响不确定。