• 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

Impact of patient incompetence on decisions to use or withhold life-sustaining treatment.

作者信息

Hanson L C, Danis M, Mutran E, Keenan N L

机构信息

Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599.

出版信息

Am J Med. 1994 Sep;97(3):235-41. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(94)90006-x.

DOI:10.1016/0002-9343(94)90006-x
PMID:8092172
Abstract

PURPOSE

To study the relationship of patient incompetence to decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments.

DESIGN AND PATIENTS

This prospective cohort study consisted of 311 inpatients with end-stage congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and cirrhosis.

METHODS

Daily assessments were used to classify patients as incompetent if they had depressed consciousness, major psychiatric disease, or cognitive impairment throughout their hospital stay. Treatment decisions were assessed by observation and medical record review.

RESULTS

Forty-eight (15%) patients were incompetent: 33 had depressed consciousness, 11 failed cognitive screens, and 4 had major psychoses. Incompetent patients were more severely ill (APACHE II score 14.9 versus 12.6, P < or = 0.05) and more commonly had cancer (73% versus 44%, P < or = 0.05). Decisions were made to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for 71% of incompetent patients, but for only 21% of competent patients (P < or = 0.001). Decisions to withhold other treatments were also more common for incompetent patients (42% versus 16%, P < or = 0.001). After controlling for differences in severity of illness, diagnosis, race, and insurance status, patient incompetence remained strongly associated with a decision to withhold CPR (odds ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 8.9) and with decisions to withhold other treatments (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 5.3). Decisions for incompetent patients were made by physicians with family surrogates 79% of the time. No decision was based on a written advanced directive. Patient preference was the rationale for 41% of decisions to withhold CPR from incompetent patients. Major conflict occurred in only 1% of all cases where a decision was made to withhold treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite current legal and ethical debate, incompetent patients are far more likely than competent patients to have life-sustaining treatment withheld. Most decisions are made by a consensus of physicians and family surrogates, and major conflicts rarely occur.

摘要

相似文献

1
Impact of patient incompetence on decisions to use or withhold life-sustaining treatment.
Am J Med. 1994 Sep;97(3):235-41. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(94)90006-x.
2
Patient age and decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments from seriously ill, hospitalized adults. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.患者年龄与对重症住院成年患者停止维持生命治疗的决策。SUPPORT研究组。了解治疗转归和风险的预后及偏好研究。
Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jan 19;130(2):116-25. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-2-199901190-00005.
3
Who decides? Physicians' willingness to use life-sustaining treatment.谁来做决定?医生使用维持生命治疗的意愿。
Arch Intern Med. 1996 Apr 8;156(7):785-9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.156.7.785.
4
Patient race and decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments for seriously ill hospitalized adults. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.患者种族与对重症住院成人实施维持生命治疗的撤除或不予治疗的决策。SUPPORT研究组。了解治疗结果与风险的预后及偏好研究。
Am J Med. 2000 Jan;108(1):14-9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)00312-5.
5
Long-term care facility policies on life-sustaining treatments and advance directives in Canada.加拿大长期护理机构关于维持生命治疗和预先指示的政策。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994 Nov;42(11):1150-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06980.x.
6
Withholding and withdrawing life sustaining treatment from elderly people: towards formal guidelines.老年人生命维持治疗的 withhold 与撤销:制定正式指南
BMJ. 1994 Jun 25;308(6945):1689-92. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6945.1689.
7
Withdrawing and withholding life support in the intensive care unit: a Spanish prospective multi-centre observational study.重症监护病房中撤除和停止生命支持:一项西班牙前瞻性多中心观察性研究。
Intensive Care Med. 2001 Nov;27(11):1744-9. doi: 10.1007/s00134-001-1111-7. Epub 2001 Oct 12.
8
Withholding and withdrawing life-support therapy in an Emergency Department: prospective survey.急诊科生命支持治疗的 withhold 与 withdraw:前瞻性调查
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Dec;30(12):2216-21. doi: 10.1007/s00134-004-2475-2. Epub 2004 Oct 29.
9
Decision-Making on Withholding or Withdrawing Life Support in the ICU: A Worldwide Perspective.重症监护病房中关于停止或撤销生命支持的决策:全球视角
Chest. 2017 Aug;152(2):321-329. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.176. Epub 2017 May 5.
10
Decisions to limit or continue life-sustaining treatment by critical care physicians in the United States: conflicts between physicians' practices and patients' wishes.美国重症监护医师关于限制或继续维持生命治疗的决策:医师的做法与患者意愿之间的冲突。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Feb;151(2 Pt 1):288-92. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.151.2.7842181.

引用本文的文献

1
Health Care Professionals' Attitudes About Physician-Assisted Death: An Analysis of Their Justifications and the Roles of Terminology and Patient Competency.医疗保健专业人员对医生协助死亡的态度:对其理由以及术语和患者能力的作用的分析。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Oct;54(4):538-545.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.07.024. Epub 2017 Jul 15.
2
Psychometric evaluation of a modified version of the family satisfaction in the ICU survey in parents/caregivers of critically ill children*.中文版 ICU 患儿父母/照护者家庭满意度量表的修订版的心理计量学评估*。
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2013 Oct;14(8):e350-6. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182917705.
3
Minor cognitive impairments in cancer patients magnify the effect of caregiver preferences on end-of-life care.
癌症患者的轻度认知障碍放大了照顾者偏好对临终关怀的影响。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Apr;45(4):650-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.03.003. Epub 2012 Jul 28.
4
Advance directives and the family: French and American perspectives.预立医疗指示与家庭:法国和美国的观点
Clin Ethics. 2007 Sep;2(3):139-145. doi: 10.1258/147775007781870038.
5
Dying with dementia in long-term care.在长期护理机构中因痴呆症离世。
Gerontologist. 2008 Dec;48(6):741-51. doi: 10.1093/geront/48.6.741.
6
Determining resuscitation preferences of elderly inpatients: a review of the literature.确定老年住院患者的复苏偏好:文献综述
CMAJ. 2003 Oct 14;169(8):795-9.
7
Criteria for patient decision making (in)competence: a review of and commentary on some empirical approaches.患者决策能力的标准:对一些实证方法的综述与评论
Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4(2):139-51. doi: 10.1023/a:1011493817051.