• 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

重症监护医生和护士对重症监护的个人偏好,与一般人群相比:一项离散选择实验。

Intensive care doctors and nurses personal preferences for Intensive Care, as compared to the general population: a discrete choice experiment.

机构信息

Intensive Care Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Level 4 G Block, Hospital Ave, Nedlands, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.

School of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.

出版信息

Crit Care. 2021 Aug 10;25(1):287. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03712-4.

DOI:10.1186/s13054-021-03712-4
PMID:34376239
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8353726/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

To test the hypothesis that Intensive Care Unit (ICU) doctors and nurses differ in their personal preferences for treatment from the general population, and whether doctors and nurses make different choices when thinking about themselves, as compared to when they are treating a patient.

METHODS

Cross sectional, observational study conducted in 13 ICUs in Australia in 2017 using a discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents completed a series of choice sets, based on hypothetical situations which varied in the severity or likelihood of: death, cognitive impairment, need for prolonged treatment, need for assistance with care or requiring residential care.

RESULTS

A total of 980 ICU staff (233 doctors and 747 nurses) participated in the study. ICU staff place the highest value on avoiding ending up in a dependent state. The ICU staff were more likely to choose to discontinue therapy when the prognosis was worse, compared with the general population. There was consensus between ICU staff personal views and the treatment pathway likely to be followed in 69% of the choices considered by nurses and 70% of those faced by doctors. In 27% (1614/5945 responses) of the nurses and 23% of the doctors (435/1870 responses), they felt that aggressive treatment would be continued for the hypothetical patient but they would not want that for themselves.

CONCLUSION

The likelihood of returning to independence (or not requiring care assistance) was reported as the most important factor for ICU staff (and the general population) in deciding whether to receive ongoing treatments. Goals of care discussions should focus on this, over likelihood of survival.

摘要

背景

为了验证一个假设,即重症监护病房(ICU)的医生和护士在治疗偏好上与普通人群存在差异,以及当他们考虑自己和治疗患者时,医生和护士是否会做出不同的选择。

方法

这是一项 2017 年在澳大利亚 13 家 ICU 进行的横断面、观察性研究,采用离散选择实验调查。受访者根据死亡、认知障碍、需要长期治疗、需要护理协助或需要长期护理的可能性和严重程度的不同,完成一系列选择集。

结果

共有 980 名 ICU 工作人员(233 名医生和 747 名护士)参与了这项研究。ICU 工作人员最看重避免陷入依赖状态。与普通人群相比,ICU 工作人员在预后较差时更有可能选择停止治疗。在护士考虑的 69%的选择和医生考虑的 70%的选择中,ICU 工作人员的个人观点和可能采取的治疗方案之间存在共识。在 27%(1614/5945 次回应)的护士和 23%的医生(435/1870 次回应)中,他们认为会为假设患者继续进行积极治疗,但他们自己不会这样做。

结论

对于 ICU 工作人员(和普通人群)来说,是否继续接受治疗的最重要因素是恢复独立(或不需要护理协助)的可能性。应该将重点放在这一点上,而不是生存的可能性上,进行治疗目标讨论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/aab2/8353726/94faf6d627a6/13054_2021_3712_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/aab2/8353726/94faf6d627a6/13054_2021_3712_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/aab2/8353726/94faf6d627a6/13054_2021_3712_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Intensive care doctors and nurses personal preferences for Intensive Care, as compared to the general population: a discrete choice experiment.重症监护医生和护士对重症监护的个人偏好,与一般人群相比:一项离散选择实验。
Crit Care. 2021 Aug 10;25(1):287. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03712-4.
2
Healthcare providers' knowledge and handling of impairments after intensive unit treatment: A questionnaire survey.医护人员对重症监护治疗后损伤的认知和处理:问卷调查。
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 Apr;64(4):532-537. doi: 10.1111/aas.13529. Epub 2019 Dec 30.
3
Would you like to be admitted to the ICU? The preferences of intensivists and general public according to different outcomes.你是否愿意被收入 ICU?根据不同的结局,重症监护医生和普通公众的偏好。
J Crit Care. 2019 Oct;53:193-197. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.06.019. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
4
Population Preferences for Treatments When Critically Ill: A Discrete Choice Experiment.当病危时,民众对治疗方案的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
Patient. 2020 Jun;13(3):339-346. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00410-1.
5
Mental health of staff working in intensive care during Covid-19.新冠肺炎疫情期间,重症监护病房工作人员的心理健康。
Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Apr 9;71(2):62-67. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqaa220.
6
[Investigation of doctors' and nurses' perceptions and implementation of delirium management in intensive care unit].[重症监护病房医生和护士对谵妄管理的认知与实施情况调查]
Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2017 Dec 1;56(12):930-934. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1426.2017.12.008.
7
Interdisciplinary communication in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of the West Indies.西印度群岛大学医院重症监护病房的跨学科交流。
West Indian Med J. 2010 Dec;59(6):656-61.
8
How do doctors and nurses manage delirium in intensive care units? A qualitative study using focus groups.医生和护士如何在重症监护病房中管理谵妄?一项使用焦点小组的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 29;6(1):e009678. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009678.
9
Speak-up culture in an intensive care unit in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional survey exploring the communication openness perceptions of Chinese doctors and nurses.香港一间重症监护病房的直言不讳文化:一项横断面调查,探究中国医生和护士对沟通开放性的看法。
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 11;7(8):e015721. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015721.
10
Perceived quality of palliative care in intensive care units among doctors and nurses in Taiwan.台湾 ICU 医生和护士对姑息治疗的感知质量。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Dec 31;31(10):741-747. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz003.

引用本文的文献

1
The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.健康经济学中离散选择实验的发展态势:一项系统综述
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 May 21. doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y.
2
Misconceptions and do-not-resuscitate preferences of healthcare professionals commonly involved in cardiopulmonary resuscitations: A national survey.参与心肺复苏的医护人员的误解及不进行心肺复苏的偏好:一项全国性调查。
Resusc Plus. 2024 Feb 13;17:100575. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100575. eCollection 2024 Mar.
3
"Do-not-resuscitate" preferences of the general Swiss population: Results from a national survey.

本文引用的文献

1
Goldilocks, the Three Bears and Intensive Care Unit Utilization: Delivering Enough Intensive Care But Not Too Much. A Narrative Review.金发姑娘、三只小熊与重症监护病房的使用:提供足够但不过量的重症监护。一篇叙述性综述。
Pulm Ther. 2020 Jun;6(1):23-33. doi: 10.1007/s41030-019-00107-3. Epub 2020 Jan 3.
2
Population Preferences for Treatments When Critically Ill: A Discrete Choice Experiment.当病危时,民众对治疗方案的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
Patient. 2020 Jun;13(3):339-346. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00410-1.
3
Clinician-Family Communication About Patients' Values and Preferences in Intensive Care Units.
瑞士普通民众的“不进行心肺复苏”偏好:一项全国性调查的结果。
Resusc Plus. 2023 Apr 5;14:100383. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100383. eCollection 2023 Jun.
临床医生与患者家属在重症监护病房中就患者价值观和偏好的沟通。
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 May 1;179(5):676-684. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0027.
4
Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.健康经济学中的离散选择实验:过去、现在和未来。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2.
5
Questions to improve family-staff communication in the ICU: a randomized controlled trial.改善 ICU 中医患沟通的问题:一项随机对照试验。
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Nov;44(11):1879-1887. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5423-2. Epub 2018 Oct 21.
6
Estimating ICU Benefit: A Randomized Study of Physicians.估算 ICU 获益:一项医师随机研究。
Crit Care Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):62-68. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003473.
7
What are the ethical issues in relation to the role of the family in intensive care?在重症监护中,家庭角色所涉及的伦理问题有哪些?
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Dec;5(Suppl 4):S40. doi: 10.21037/atm.2017.04.44.
8
Physicians Rarely Elicit Critically Ill Patients' Previously Expressed Treatment Preferences in Intensive Care Units.在重症监护病房,医生很少询问病情危急患者此前表达过的治疗偏好。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Jul 15;196(2):242-245. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201611-2242LE.
9
Does anyone ever expect to die?有人曾期待死亡吗?
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2017 Jul;45(4):466-468. doi: 10.1177/0310057X1704500409.
10
Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee.界定无效和潜在不适当的干预措施:危重病医学学会伦理委员会的政策声明
Crit Care Med. 2016 Sep;44(9):1769-74. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001965.