Nabozny Michael J, Kruser Jacqueline M, Steffens Nicole M, Pecanac Kristen E, Brasel Karen J, Chittenden Eva H, Cooper Zara, McKneally Martin F, Schwarze Margaret L
*Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI †Department of Medicine, Northwestern University. Chicago, IL ‡School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI §Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR ¶Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital. Boston, MA ||Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital. Boston, MA **Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ††Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ‡‡Department of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Ann Surg. 2017 Jan;265(1):97-102. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001645.
To characterize how patients buy-in to treatments beyond the operating room and what limits they would place on additional life-supporting treatments.
During a high-risk operation, surgeons generally assume that patients buy-in to life-supporting interventions that might be necessary postoperatively. How patients understand this agreement and their willingness to participate in additional treatment is unknown.
We purposively sampled surgeons in Toronto, Ontario, Boston, Massachusetts, and Madison, Wisconsin, who are good communicators and routinely perform high-risk operations. We audio-recorded their conversations with patients considering high-risk surgery. For patients who were then scheduled for surgery, we performed open-ended preoperative and postoperative interviews. We used directed qualitative content analysis to analyze the interviews and surgeon visits, specifically evaluating the content about the use of postoperative life support.
We recorded 43 patients' conversations with surgeons, 34 preoperative, and 27 postoperative interviews. Patients expressed trust in their surgeon to make decisions about additional treatments if a serious complication occurred, yet expressed a preference for significant treatment limitations that were not discussed with their surgeon preoperatively. Patients valued the existence or creation of an advance directive preoperatively, but they did not discuss this directive with their surgeon. Instead they assumed it would be effective if needed and that family members knew their wishes.
Patients implicitly trust their surgeons to treat postoperative complications as they arise. Although patients may buy-in to some additional postoperative interventions, they hold a broad range of preferences for treatment limitations that were not discussed with the surgeon preoperatively.
描述患者如何接受手术室之外的治疗,以及他们会对额外的生命支持治疗设置哪些限制。
在高风险手术期间,外科医生通常假定患者会接受术后可能必要的生命支持干预措施。患者如何理解这一约定以及他们参与额外治疗的意愿尚不清楚。
我们有目的地抽取了安大略省多伦多市、马萨诸塞州波士顿市和威斯康星州麦迪逊市善于沟通且经常进行高风险手术的外科医生。我们对他们与考虑进行高风险手术的患者的对话进行了录音。对于随后安排手术的患者,我们进行了开放式的术前和术后访谈。我们使用定向定性内容分析法来分析访谈和外科医生的问诊情况,特别评估关于术后生命支持使用的内容。
我们记录了43名患者与外科医生的对话、34次术前访谈和27次术后访谈。患者表示信任外科医生在发生严重并发症时就额外治疗做出决策,但同时表示倾向于显著的治疗限制,而这些限制术前并未与外科医生讨论过。患者重视术前预先指示的存在或制定,但他们没有与外科医生讨论该指示。相反,他们认为如有需要该指示会有效,且家庭成员知晓他们的意愿。
患者暗自信任外科医生处理出现的术后并发症。尽管患者可能会接受一些额外的术后干预措施,但他们对于术前未与外科医生讨论过的治疗限制有着广泛的偏好。