Beliefs of physician directors on the management of devastating brain injuries at the Canadian emergency department and intensive care unit interface: a national site-level survey

Piotr Wtorek, Matthew J. Weiss, Jeffrey M. Singh, Carmen Hrymak, Alecs Chochinov, Brian Grunau, Bojan Paunovic, Sam D. Shemie, Jehan Lalani, Bailey Piggott, James Stempien, Patrick Archambault, Parisa Seleseh, Rob Fowler, Murdoch Leeies
{"title":"Beliefs of physician directors on the management of devastating brain injuries at the Canadian emergency department and intensive care unit interface: a national site-level survey","authors":"Piotr Wtorek, Matthew J. Weiss, Jeffrey M. Singh, Carmen Hrymak, Alecs Chochinov, Brian Grunau, Bojan Paunovic, Sam D. Shemie, Jehan Lalani, Bailey Piggott, James Stempien, Patrick Archambault, Parisa Seleseh, Rob Fowler, Murdoch Leeies","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02749-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Insufficient evidence-based recommendations to guide care for patients with devastating brain injuries (DBIs) leave patients vulnerable to inconsistent practice at the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) interface. We sought to characterize the beliefs of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) physician site directors regarding current management practices for patients with DBI.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EM and CCM physician directors of adult EDs and ICUs across Canada (December 2022 to March 2023). Our primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who manage (or consult on) patients with DBI in the ED. We conducted subgroup analyses to compare beliefs of EM and CCM physicians.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Of 303 eligible respondents, we received 98 (32%) completed surveys (EM physician directors, 46; CCM physician directors, 52). Most physician directors reported participating in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining measures (WLSM) for patients with DBI in the ED (80%, <i>n</i> = 78), but 63% of these (<i>n</i> = 62) said this was infrequent. Physician directors reported that existing neuroprognostication methods are rarely sufficient to support WLSM in the ED (49%, <i>n</i> = 48) and believed that an ICU stay is required to improve confidence (99%, <i>n</i> = 97). Most (96%, <i>n</i> = 94) felt that providing caregiver visitation time prior to WLSM was a valid reason for ICU admission.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>In our survey of Canadian EM and CCM physician directors, 80% participated in WLSM in the ED for patients with DBI. Despite this, most supported ICU admission to optimize neuroprognostication and patient-centred end-of-life care, including organ donation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9472,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02749-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Insufficient evidence-based recommendations to guide care for patients with devastating brain injuries (DBIs) leave patients vulnerable to inconsistent practice at the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) interface. We sought to characterize the beliefs of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) physician site directors regarding current management practices for patients with DBI.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EM and CCM physician directors of adult EDs and ICUs across Canada (December 2022 to March 2023). Our primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who manage (or consult on) patients with DBI in the ED. We conducted subgroup analyses to compare beliefs of EM and CCM physicians.

Results

Of 303 eligible respondents, we received 98 (32%) completed surveys (EM physician directors, 46; CCM physician directors, 52). Most physician directors reported participating in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining measures (WLSM) for patients with DBI in the ED (80%, n = 78), but 63% of these (n = 62) said this was infrequent. Physician directors reported that existing neuroprognostication methods are rarely sufficient to support WLSM in the ED (49%, n = 48) and believed that an ICU stay is required to improve confidence (99%, n = 97). Most (96%, n = 94) felt that providing caregiver visitation time prior to WLSM was a valid reason for ICU admission.

Conclusion

In our survey of Canadian EM and CCM physician directors, 80% participated in WLSM in the ED for patients with DBI. Despite this, most supported ICU admission to optimize neuroprognostication and patient-centred end-of-life care, including organ donation.

加拿大急诊科与重症监护室交接处主任医师对破坏性脑损伤管理的看法:全国现场调查
目的用于指导治疗破坏性脑损伤(DBI)患者的循证建议不足,导致患者在急诊科(ED)和重症监护室(ICU)交界处容易受到不一致做法的影响。我们试图了解加拿大急诊科(EM)和重症监护科(CCM)的主任医师对当前DBI患者管理实践的看法。方法我们对加拿大各地成人急诊科和重症监护室的EM和CCM主任医师进行了横断面调查(2022年12月至2023年3月)。我们的主要结果是在急诊室管理(或咨询)DBI 患者的受访者比例。我们进行了分组分析,以比较急诊科医生和重症监护室医生的信念。结果 在 303 位符合条件的受访者中,我们收到了 98 份(32%)完成的调查问卷(急诊科主任医师 46 份;重症监护室主任医师 52 份)。大多数主任医师表示参与了对急诊室中的 DBI 患者撤除维持生命措施 (WLSM) 的决定(80%,n = 78),但其中 63% 的主任医师(n = 62)表示并不经常参与。内科主任称,现有的神经诊断方法很少足以支持急诊室的 WLSM(49%,n = 48),并认为需要入住重症监护室才能提高可信度(99%,n = 97)。大多数人(96%,n = 94)认为,在 WLSM 之前提供护理人员探视时间是入住 ICU 的合理理由。结论在我们对加拿大急诊科和中医科主任医师进行的调查中,80% 的急诊科主任医师参与了针对 DBI 患者的 WLSM。尽管如此,大多数人还是支持入住重症监护室,以优化神经诊断和以患者为中心的临终关怀,包括器官捐献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信