Casarett D J, Stocking C B, Siegler M
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Jan;14(1):35-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00278.x.
To assess whether physicians would be more likely to override a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order when a hypothetical cardiac arrest is iatrogenic.
Mailed survey of 358 practicing physicians.
A university-affiliated community teaching hospital.
Of 358 physicians surveyed, 285 (80%) responded.
Each survey included three case descriptions in which a patient negotiates a DNR order, and then suffers a cardiac arrest. The arrests were caused by the patient's underlying disease, by an unexpected complication of treatment, and by the physician's error. Physicians were asked to rate the likelihood that they would attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation for each case description. Physicians indicated that they would be unlikely to override a DNR order when the arrest was caused by the patient's underlying disease (mean score 2.55 on a scale from 1 "certainly would not" to 7 "certainly would"). Physicians reported they would be much more likely to resuscitate when the arrest was due to a complication of treatment (5.24 vs 2. 55; difference 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.44, 2.91; p <.001), and that they would be even more likely to resuscitate when the arrest was due to physician error (6.32 vs 5.24; difference 95% CI 0. 88, 1.20; p <.001). Eight percent, 29%, and 69% of physicians, respectively, said that they "certainly would" resuscitate in these three vignettes (p <.001).
Physicians may believe that DNR orders do not apply to iatrogenic cardiac arrests and that patients do not consider the possibility of an iatrogenic arrest when they negotiate a DNR order. Physicians may also believe that there is a greater obligation to treat when an illness is iatrogenic, and particularly when an illness results from the physician's error. This response to iatrogenic cardiac arrests, and its possible generalization to other iatrogenic complications, deserves further consideration and discussion.
评估当假设的心搏骤停是医源性时,医生是否更有可能撤销“不要复苏”(DNR)医嘱。
对358名执业医生进行邮寄调查。
一所大学附属医院社区教学医院。
在358名接受调查的医生中,285名(80%)做出了回应。
每份调查问卷包含三个病例描述,其中患者协商制定了DNR医嘱,随后发生心搏骤停。心搏骤停分别由患者的基础疾病、治疗的意外并发症以及医生的失误引起。要求医生对每个病例描述中他们进行心肺复苏的可能性进行评分。医生表示,当心搏骤停由患者的基础疾病引起时,他们不太可能撤销DNR医嘱(在1“肯定不会”至7“肯定会”的量表上平均得分为2.55)。医生报告称,当心搏骤停是由治疗并发症导致时,他们进行复苏的可能性要大得多(5.24对2.55;差异95%置信区间[CI]2.44,2.91;p <.001),并且当心搏骤停是由医生失误导致时,他们进行复苏的可能性更大(6.32对5.24;差异95%CI 0.88,1.20;p <.001)。在这三个病例中,分别有8%、29%和69%的医生表示他们“肯定会”进行复苏(p <.001)。
医生可能认为DNR医嘱不适用于医源性心搏骤停,并且患者在协商制定DNR医嘱时没有考虑医源性心搏骤停的可能性。医生也可能认为当疾病是医源性时,特别是当疾病由医生的失误导致时,治疗的义务更大。这种对医源性心搏骤停的反应及其可能推广到其他医源性并发症,值得进一步思考和讨论。