Kious Brent M, Vick Judith B, Ubel Peter A, Sutton Olivia, Blumenthal-Barby Jennifer, Cox Christopher E, Ashana Deepshikha
Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Department of Philosophy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2025 Jan-Mar;16(1):52-59. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2024.2399534. Epub 2024 Sep 9.
Some have hypothesized that talk about suffering can be used by clinicians to motivate difficult decisions, especially to argue for reducing treatment at the end of life. We examined how talk about suffering is related to decision-making for critically ill patients, by evaluating transcripts of conversations between clinicians and patients' families.
We conducted a secondary qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded family meetings from a multicenter trial conducted in the adult intensive care units of five hospitals from 2012-2017 to look at how the term "suffering" and its variants were used. A coding guide was developed by consensus-oriented discussion by four members of the research team. Two coders independently evaluated each transcript. We followed an inductive approach to data analysis in reviewing transcripts; findings were iteratively discussed among study authors until consensus on key themes was reached.
Of 146 available transcripts, 34 (23%) contained the word "suffer" or "suffering" at least once, with 58 distinct uses. Clinicians contributed 62% of first uses. Among uses describing the suffering of persons, 57% ( = 24) were related to a decision, but only 42% ( = 10) of decision-relevant uses accompanied a proposal to limit treatment, and only half of treatment-limiting uses ( = 5) were initiated by clinicians. The target terms had a variety of implicit meanings, including poor prognosis, reduced functioning, pain, discomfort, low quality of life, and emotional distress. Suffering was frequently attributed to persons who were unconscious.
Our results did not support the claim that the term "suffering" and its variants are used primarily by clinicians to justify limiting treatment, and the terms were not commonly used in our sample when decisions were requested. Still, when these terms were used, they were often used in a decision-relevant fashion.
一些人推测,临床医生可以利用关于痛苦的讨论来推动艰难的决策,尤其是在临终时主张减少治疗。我们通过评估临床医生与患者家属之间的对话记录,研究了关于痛苦的讨论与重症患者决策之间的关系。
我们对2012年至2017年在五家医院的成人重症监护病房进行的一项多中心试验中的家庭会议录音进行了二次定性内容分析,以研究“痛苦”一词及其变体的使用方式。研究团队的四名成员通过以共识为导向的讨论制定了一份编码指南。两名编码员独立评估每份记录。我们在审查记录时采用归纳法进行数据分析;研究作者之间反复讨论研究结果,直到就关键主题达成共识。
在146份可用记录中,34份(23%)至少包含一次“遭受”或“痛苦”一词,共有58种不同的用法。临床医生的首次使用占62%。在描述人的痛苦的用法中,57%(=24)与决策相关,但与决策相关的用法中只有42%(=10)伴随着限制治疗的提议,而限制治疗的用法中只有一半(=5)是由临床医生提出的。目标术语有多种隐含意义,包括预后不良、功能减退、疼痛、不适、生活质量低和情绪困扰。痛苦常常被归因于昏迷的人。
我们的结果不支持“痛苦”一词及其变体主要被临床医生用来为限制治疗辩护的说法,并且在我们的样本中,当需要做出决策时,这些术语并不常用。尽管如此,当使用这些术语时,它们通常是以与决策相关的方式使用的。