Dahmen Birte Malena, Vollmann Jochen, Nadolny Stephan, Schildmann Jan
Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum, Markstraße 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.
Diaconia University of Applied Sciences Bielefeld, Bethelweg 8, 33617, Bielefeld, Germany.
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Jan 17;16(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12904-016-0176-6.
Limiting treatment forms part of practice in many fields of medicine. There is a scarcity of robust data from Germany. Therefore, in this paper, we report results of a survey among German physicians with a focus on frequencies, aspects of decision making and determinants of limiting treatment with expected or intended shortening of life.
Postal survey among a random sample of physicians working in the area of five German state chambers of physicians using a modified version of the questionnaire of the EURELD Consortium. Information requested referred to the patients who died most recently within the last 12 months. Logistic regression was performed to analyse associations between characteristics of physicians and patients regarding limitation of treatment with expected or intended shortening of life.
As reported elsewhere, 734 physicians responded (response rate 36.9%) and of these, 174 (43.2%) reported a withholding and 144 (35.7%) a withdrawal of treatment. Eighty one physicians estimated that there was at least some shortening of life as a consequence. In 25.9% of these cases hastening death had been discussed with the patient at the time or immediately prior to this action. Types of treatment most frequently limited was artificial nutrition (n = 35). Bivariate analysis indicates that limitation of treatment with possible or intended shortening of life for patients aged > 75 years is performed significantly more often (p = 0.007, OR 1.848). There was significantly less limitation of treatment in patients who died from cancer compared to patients with other causes of death (p = 0.01, OR 0.486). There was no significant statistical association with physicians' religion, palliative care qualification or frequencies of limiting treatment.
In comparison to recent research from other European countries, limitation of treatment with expected or intended shortening of life is frequently performed amongst the investigated sample. The role of clinical and non-medical aspects possibly relevant for physicians' decision about withholding or withdrawal of treatment with possible or intended shortening of life and reasons for non-involvement of patients should be explored in more detail by means of mixed method and interdisciplinary empirical-ethical analysis.
在许多医学领域,限制治疗是临床实践的一部分。德国缺乏有力的数据。因此,在本文中,我们报告了一项针对德国医生的调查结果,重点关注限制治疗的频率、决策方面以及预期或有意缩短生命的限制治疗的决定因素。
使用EURELD联盟问卷的修改版,对德国五个州医师协会辖区内工作的医生进行随机抽样邮政调查。所要求的信息涉及过去12个月内最近死亡的患者。进行逻辑回归分析,以分析医生和患者特征与预期或有意缩短生命的限制治疗之间的关联。
如其他地方所报道,734名医生做出了回应(回应率36.9%),其中174名(43.2%)报告了 withholding( withhold的现在分词,意为“ withholding” ,此处可理解为“ withholding treatment” ,即“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,即“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为“ withholding treatment” ,意为表示不给予治疗),144名(35.7%)报告了 withdrawal of treatment(停止治疗)。81名医生估计至少有一定程度的生命缩短是由此导致的。在这些案例中,25.9%的情况是在采取该行动时或紧接该行动之前与患者讨论过加速死亡的问题。最常受限的治疗类型是人工营养(n = 35)。双变量分析表明,对于年龄大于75岁的患者,可能或有意缩短生命的限制治疗显著更频繁地进行(p = 0.007,比值比1.848)。与其他死因的患者相比,死于癌症的患者的治疗受限显著更少(p = 0.01,比值比0.486)。与医生的宗教信仰、姑息治疗资格或限制治疗的频率没有显著的统计学关联。
与其他欧洲国家最近的研究相比,在所调查的样本中,预期或有意缩短生命的限制治疗经常进行。应通过混合方法和跨学科的实证伦理分析,更详细地探讨可能与医生决定是否停止或撤回可能或有意缩短生命的治疗相关的临床和非医学方面的作用,以及患者未参与的原因。