Prehospital Research Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Kildemosevej 15, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jun 30;22(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00654-y.
Decision-making in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest should ideally include clinical and ethical factors. Little is known about the extent of ethical considerations and their influence on prehospital resuscitation. We aimed to determine the transparency in medical records regarding decision-making in prehospital resuscitation with a specific focus on ethically relevant information and consideration in resuscitation providers' documentation.
This was a Danish nationwide retrospective observational study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from 2016 through 2018. After an initial screening using broadly defined inclusion criteria, two experienced philosophers performed a qualitative content analysis of the included medical records according to a preliminary codebook. We identified ethically relevant content in free-text fields and categorised the information according to Beauchamp and Childress' four basic bioethical principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice.
Of 16,495 medical records, we identified 759 (4.6%) with potentially relevant information; 710 records (4.3%) contained ethically relevant information, whereas 49 did not. In general, the documentation was vague and unclear. We identified four kinds of ethically relevant information: patients' wishes and perspectives on life; relatives' wishes and perspectives on patients' life; healthcare professionals' opinions and perspectives on resuscitation; and do-not-resuscitate orders. We identified some "best practice" examples that included all perspectives of decision-making.
There is sparse and unclear evidence on ethically relevant information in the medical records documenting resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. However, the "best practice" examples show that providing sufficient documentation of decision-making is, in fact, feasible. To ensure transparency surrounding prehospital decisions in cardiac arrests, we believe that it is necessary to ensure more systematic documentation of decision-making in prehospital resuscitation.
院外心脏骤停的决策理想情况下应包括临床和伦理因素。关于伦理考虑及其对院前复苏的影响知之甚少。我们旨在确定院前复苏决策记录中透明度,特别关注复苏提供者记录中的与伦理相关的信息和考虑。
这是一项丹麦全国范围内的回顾性观察性研究,研究对象为 2016 年至 2018 年期间的院外心脏骤停患者。在使用广义纳入标准进行初步筛选后,两名经验丰富的哲学家根据初步代码本对纳入的病历进行了定性内容分析。我们在自由文本字段中识别出与伦理相关的内容,并根据 Beauchamp 和 Childress 的四项基本生物伦理原则对信息进行分类:自主性、不伤害、受益和公正。
在 16495 份病历中,我们确定了 759 份(4.6%)可能有相关信息;710 份(4.3%)记录包含与伦理相关的信息,而 49 份则没有。总体而言,文档描述含糊不清。我们确定了四种与伦理相关的信息:患者对生活的意愿和观点;亲属对患者生活的意愿和观点;医疗保健专业人员对复苏的意见和观点;以及不复苏命令。我们还确定了一些“最佳实践”示例,其中包含决策制定的所有观点。
在记录院外心脏骤停后复苏的病历中,有关伦理相关信息的证据稀疏且不明确。然而,“最佳实践”示例表明,提供充分的决策记录实际上是可行的。为了确保心脏骤停院前决策的透明度,我们认为有必要确保院前复苏决策的记录更加系统。