• 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

相似文献

1
Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.为 ICU 中未被代表的患者做出医疗决策。美国胸科学会/美国老年医学学会官方政策声明。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 May 15;201(10):1182-1192. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202003-0512ST.
2
An Official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units.美国胸科学会/美国护理学会/美国胸科医师学会/欧洲危重病医学会/重症医学会联合政策声明:在重症监护病房中应对潜在不适当治疗的请求。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Jun 1;191(11):1318-30. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201505-0924ST.
3
Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.重症监护病房中的共同决策:美国危重病医学会和美国胸科学会政策声明
Crit Care Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):188-201. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001396.
4
An official American Thoracic Society policy statement: managing conscientious objections in intensive care medicine.美国胸科学会官方政策声明:重症监护医学中的凭良心拒绝医疗。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan 15;191(2):219-27. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201410-1916ST.
5
Difficult healthcare transitions: Ethical analysis and policy recommendations for unrepresented patients.艰难的医疗过渡:针对未获充分代表的患者的伦理分析与政策建议
Nurs Ethics. 2016 Nov;23(7):770-783. doi: 10.1177/0969733015583185. Epub 2015 Jul 9.
6
The Role of a Hospital Ethics Consultation Service in Decision-Making for Unrepresented Patients.医院伦理咨询服务在无代表患者决策中的作用
J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Jun;14(2):241-250. doi: 10.1007/s11673-017-9773-1. Epub 2017 Mar 6.
7
Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement.严重呼吸系统疾病患者的照护延续链中的舒缓医疗:美国胸科学会/美国临终关怀与姑息医学学会/美国护士麻醉师协会/世界卫生组织姑息治疗联盟政策声明。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 Sep 15;206(6):e44-e69. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202207-1262ST.
8
Regional Unrepresented Patient Advocacy Committee as an Alternative for Decision Making.地区无代表患者权益倡导委员会作为决策的替代方案。
AMA J Ethics. 2019 Jul 1;21(7):E594-599. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.594.
9
Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients: American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement Lacks Sufficient Guidance.无代理人患者的治疗决策:美国胸科学会/美国老年医学会政策声明缺乏充分指导。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov 15;202(10):1483-1484. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202006-2206LE.
10
Reply to Weber: Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients: American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement Lacks Sufficient Guidance.对韦伯的回复:未获代理患者的治疗决策:美国胸科学会/美国老年医学会政策声明缺乏充分指导。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov 15;202(10):1484-1485. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202007-2806LE.

引用本文的文献

1
American Geriatrics Society position statement: Making medical treatment decisions for unrepresented older adults.美国老年医学会立场声明:为无代理人的老年人做出医疗决策
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2025 May;73(5):1353-1364. doi: 10.1111/jgs.19288. Epub 2024 Nov 30.
2
Embracing ambivalence and hesitation: a Ricoeurian perspective on anticipatory choice processes at the end of life.拥抱矛盾与犹豫:关于生命末期预期选择过程的一种里克尔式视角。
Med Health Care Philos. 2024 Dec;27(4):555-566. doi: 10.1007/s11019-024-10228-5. Epub 2024 Oct 5.
3
Position statement of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions in the context of palliative care.巴西姑息治疗学会关于在姑息治疗背景下撤回和停止生命支持干预措施的立场声明。
Crit Care Sci. 2024 Sep 9;36:e20240021en. doi: 10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en. eCollection 2024.
4
Limitation of life sustaining therapy in disorders of consciousness: ethics and practice.限制生命支持治疗在意识障碍中的应用:伦理与实践。
Brain. 2024 Jul 5;147(7):2274-2288. doi: 10.1093/brain/awae060.
5
Hospital Policy Variation in Addressing Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment.医院在决定是否停止和撤回生命支持治疗方面的政策差异。
Chest. 2024 Apr;165(4):950-958. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.12.028. Epub 2024 Jan 4.
6
In This Together: Navigating Ethical Challenges Posed by Family Clustering during the Covid-19 Pandemic.众志成城:共同应对新冠疫情期间家庭聚集带来的伦理挑战
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Mar;51(2):16-21. doi: 10.1002/hast.1241.
7
Unrepresented Adults Face Adverse Healthcare Consequences: The Role of Guardians, Public Guardianship Reform, and Alternative Policy Solutions.无代表成年人面临不利的医疗后果:监护人的作用、公共监护改革和替代政策解决方案。
J Aging Soc Policy. 2022 May 4;34(3):418-437. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2020.1851433. Epub 2021 Jan 18.
8
Older Adults without Desired Surrogates in a Nationally Representative Sample.无意愿指定代理人的老年人:全国代表性样本研究
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Jan;69(1):114-121. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16813. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
9
Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review.剖析预先医疗照护计划结果的复杂性:我们了解什么,又该往何处去? 范围性回顾。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Jan;69(1):234-244. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16801. Epub 2020 Sep 7.
10
Reply to Weber: Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients: American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement Lacks Sufficient Guidance.对韦伯的回复:未获代理患者的治疗决策:美国胸科学会/美国老年医学会政策声明缺乏充分指导。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov 15;202(10):1484-1485. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202007-2806LE.

本文引用的文献

1
Making Medical Decisions for Incapacitated Patients Without Proxies: Part II.为无代理人的无行为能力患者做出医疗决策:第二部分。
HEC Forum. 2020 Mar;32(1):47-62. doi: 10.1007/s10730-019-09388-2.
2
Making Medical Decisions for Incapacitated Patients Without Proxies: Part I.为无代理人的无行为能力患者做出医疗决策:第一部分。
HEC Forum. 2020 Mar;32(1):33-45. doi: 10.1007/s10730-019-09387-3.
3
Who Makes Decisions for Incapacitated Patients Who Have No Surrogate or Advance Directive?谁为没有代理人或预先医疗指示的无行为能力患者做决策?
AMA J Ethics. 2019 Jul 1;21(7):E587-593. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.587.
4
Should Dialysis Be Stopped for an Unrepresented Patient With Metastatic Cancer?对于无代理人的转移性癌症患者,是否应该停止透析?
AMA J Ethics. 2019 Jul 1;21(7):E575-581. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.575.
5
Ethical Challenges in Caring for Unrepresented Adults: A Qualitative Study of Key Stakeholders.无代理人成年人照护中的伦理挑战:主要利益攸关方的定性研究
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Aug;67(8):1724-1729. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15957. Epub 2019 May 6.
6
Characteristics and unmet care needs of unbefriended residents in long-term care: a qualitative interview study.无陪伴长期护理居民的特征和未满足的护理需求:一项定性访谈研究。
Aging Ment Health. 2020 Apr;24(4):659-667. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2019.1566812. Epub 2019 Jan 24.
7
American College of Physicians Ethics Manual: Seventh Edition.美国医师学院伦理手册:第七版。
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan 15;170(2_Suppl):S1-S32. doi: 10.7326/M18-2160.
8
Conflicts of interest in intensive care medicine.重症医学中的利益冲突。
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Oct;44(10):1765-1766. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5335-1. Epub 2018 Aug 2.
9
Nontraditional Surrogate Decision Makers for Hospitalized Older Adults.非传统的老年住院患者代理人。
Med Care. 2018 Apr;56(4):337-340. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000890.
10
The Burden of Guardianship: A Matched Cohort Study.监护负担:一项配对队列研究。
J Hosp Med. 2018 Sep 1;13(9):595-601. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2946. Epub 2018 Feb 5.

为 ICU 中未被代表的患者做出医疗决策。美国胸科学会/美国老年医学学会官方政策声明。

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 May 15;201(10):1182-1192. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202003-0512ST.

DOI:10.1164/rccm.202003-0512ST
PMID:32412853
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7233335/
Abstract

: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: ) to protect highly vulnerable patients, ) to demonstrate respect for persons, ) to provide appropriate medical care, ) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and ) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: ) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; ) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; ) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than by treating clinicians; ) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; ) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; ) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

摘要

: ICU 临床医生经常照顾那些没有能力、适用的预先指示和可用替代决策人的患者。尽管在术语上没有共识,但我们称这些患者为“未代表”。对于如何为这些患者做出治疗决策存在相当大的争议,法律和临床实践都存在很大的差异。: 本多学会声明为重症监护环境中的代表患者提供了临床医生和医院管理人员的决策建议。: 一个跨专业、多学科的专家委员会通过使用代表重症监护医学、姑息治疗、儿科医学、护理、社会工作、老年学、老年医学、患者权益、生物伦理学、哲学、老年法和健康法的多样化工作组,使用迭代共识过程制定了这项政策声明。: 委员会设计其政策建议旨在促进五个道德目标:) 保护高度脆弱的患者,) 表现出对人的尊重,) 提供适当的医疗护理,) 防止不可接受的歧视,) 避免竞争义务和利益冲突的不当影响。这些建议还旨在在过度和不足的程序保障之间取得适当的平衡。委员会提出以下建议:) 机构应提供预先护理计划,以防止有成为未代表患者风险的患者符合这一定义;) 机构应实施策略来确定看似未代表的患者是否实际上未代表,包括仔细进行能力评估和仔细寻找潜在的代理人;) 机构应使用来自多样化的跨专业、多学科委员会的输入来管理未代表患者的决策,而不是由治疗临床医生来管理;) 机构应使用患者偏好和价值观的所有可用信息来指导治疗决策;) 机构应使用符合程序正当程序的公平流程来管理未代表患者的决策;) 即使州法律授权程序监管较少,机构也应采用此公平流程。: 本多学会声明为重症监护环境中的代表患者提供了临床医生和医院管理人员的决策建议。