Chahrour Raymonda, Bannout Amani, Majdalani Marianne, Yamout Rana, Ismail Ali, Raffoul Elma Abou, Moukhaiber Jihane
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Department of Internal Medicine, Palliative Care Program, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Mar 20;12:1532724. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1532724. eCollection 2025.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) use with no considerations given to patient selection or therapeutic aim resulted in extension of the agony, pain and dying process for terminally ill patients. Four Resuscitation-limiting Codes other than Full Code exist. In a conservative country like Lebanon, several factors can influence such decisions, namely the ethical, legal, religious perspectives, pediatric population, and more importantly the lack of protocol, healthcare workers (HCWs) knowledge, understanding and readiness to discuss terminal care with the parents. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the knowledge, behavior and comfort level of Lebanese pediatric HCWs in code status discussions, and to determine major obstacles encountered.
This is a cross-sectional observational study. An anonymous questionnaire has been sent electronically for 400 pediatric HCWs from different hospitals across Lebanon, over a period of 3 months.
Of the 400 pediatric HCWs recruited, 235 completed the survey. 39.9% of medical doctors (MDs), and 62% of registered nurses (RNs) did not know about code status subtypes. Most of the MDs are using the paternalistic approach. There were significant differences between MDs and RNs regarding their point of view toward code status, but both thought that it was not defined in the Lebanese law (86.7% of MDs vs. 87% of RNs), and are not comfortable in such discussions (79% for MDs vs. 84.8% for RNs). The decisions taken by MDs regarding life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in different resuscitation-limiting codes showed clearly the knowledge gap. Moreover, attendings and trainees differed significantly in their decisions, where the latter seemed more conservative. Pediatric HCWs in Lebanon are facing major obstacles when it comes to code status decisions.
Code status in Lebanon is an immature concept, and pediatric HCWs are challenged with conflicting decisions and obligations when it comes to code status discussions and LSTs. A multidisciplinary approach, with good communication between different members of the medical team would be the best. Addressing the obstacles encountered, and set a clear protocol will not only unify and solidify the HCWs decisions, but will have positive impact and repercussions on the patient care as well.
在不考虑患者选择或治疗目的的情况下进行心肺复苏(CPR),会延长绝症患者的痛苦、疼痛和死亡过程。除了“全力抢救”外,还有四种限制复苏的代码。在黎巴嫩这样一个保守的国家,有几个因素会影响此类决策,即伦理、法律、宗教观念、儿科人群,更重要的是缺乏相关协议、医护人员(HCWs)的知识、对与家长讨论临终护理的理解和准备情况。本研究的目的是评估黎巴嫩儿科医护人员在代码状态讨论方面的知识、行为和舒适度,并确定遇到的主要障碍。
这是一项横断面观察性研究。在3个月的时间里,通过电子方式向黎巴嫩不同医院的400名儿科医护人员发送了一份匿名问卷。
在招募的400名儿科医护人员中,有235人完成了调查。39.9%的医生(MDs)和62%的注册护士(RNs)不知道代码状态的亚型。大多数医生采用家长式方法。医生和护士在对代码状态的看法上存在显著差异,但双方都认为黎巴嫩法律未对此进行定义(86.7%的医生和87%的护士),并且在这类讨论中感到不自在(79%的医生和84.8%的护士)。医生在不同限制复苏代码下关于维持生命治疗(LSTs)的决策明显显示出知识差距。此外,主治医生和实习医生的决策存在显著差异,后者似乎更为保守。黎巴嫩的儿科医护人员在代码状态决策方面面临重大障碍。
黎巴嫩的代码状态是一个不成熟的概念,儿科医护人员在代码状态讨论和维持生命治疗方面面临相互冲突的决策和义务。多学科方法,以及医疗团队不同成员之间的良好沟通将是最佳选择。解决遇到的障碍并制定明确的协议不仅会统一和巩固医护人员的决策,还会对患者护理产生积极影响和反响。