A Survey of Physicians' Attitudes toward Decision-Making Authority for Initiating and Withdrawing VA-ECMO: Results and Ethical Implications for Shared Decision Making.

Q3 Medicine
Ellen C Meltzer, Natalia S Ivascu, Meredith Stark, Alexander V Orfanos, Cathleen A Acres, Paul J Christos, Thomas Mangione, Joseph J Fins
{"title":"A Survey of Physicians' Attitudes toward Decision-Making Authority for Initiating and Withdrawing VA-ECMO: Results and Ethical Implications for Shared Decision Making.","authors":"Ellen C Meltzer, Natalia S Ivascu, Meredith Stark, Alexander V Orfanos, Cathleen A Acres, Paul J Christos, Thomas Mangione, Joseph J Fins","doi":"10.2217/bmm.10.117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although patients exercise greater autonomy than in the past, and shared decision making is promoted as the preferred model for doctor-patient engagement, tensions still exist in clinical practice about the primary locus of decision-making authority for complex, scarce, and resource-intensive medical therapies: patients and their surrogates, or physicians. We assessed physicians' attitudes toward decisional authority for adult venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), hypothesizing they would favor a medical locus.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, participants: </strong>A survey of resident/fellow physicians and internal medicine attendings at an academic medical center, May to August 2013.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>We used a 24-item, internet-based survey assessing physician-respondents' demographic characteristics, knowledge, and attitudes regarding decisional authority for adult VA-ECMO. Qualitative narratives were also collected.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of 179 physicians completed the survey (15 percent response rate); 48 percent attendings and 52 percent residents/fellows. Only 32 percent of the respondents indicated that a surrogate's consent should be required to discontinue VA-ECMO; 56 percent felt that physicians should have the right to discontinue VA-ECMO over a surrogate's objection. Those who self-reported as \"knowledgeable\" about VA-ECMO, compared to those who did not, more frequently replied that there should not be presumed consent for VA-ECMO (47.6 percent versus 33.3 percent, p = 0.007), that physicians should have the right to discontinue VA-ECMO over a surrogate's objection (76.2 percent versus 50 percent, p = 0.02) and that, given its cost, the use of VA-ECMO should be restricted (81.0 percent versus 54.4 percent, p = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Surveyed physicians, especially those who self-reported as knowledgeable about VA-ECMO and/or were specialists in pulmonary/critical care, favored a medical locus of decisional authority for VA-ECMO. VA-ECMO is complex, and the data may (1) reflect physicians' hesitance to cede authority to presumably less knowledgeable patients and surrogates, (2) stem from a stewardship of resources perspective, and/or (3) point to practical efforts to avoid futility and utility disputes. Whether these results indicate a more widespread reversion to paternalism or a more circumscribed usurping of decisional authority occasioned by VA-ECMO necessitates further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"27 4","pages":"281-289"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5735424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/bmm.10.117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Although patients exercise greater autonomy than in the past, and shared decision making is promoted as the preferred model for doctor-patient engagement, tensions still exist in clinical practice about the primary locus of decision-making authority for complex, scarce, and resource-intensive medical therapies: patients and their surrogates, or physicians. We assessed physicians' attitudes toward decisional authority for adult venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), hypothesizing they would favor a medical locus.

Design, setting, participants: A survey of resident/fellow physicians and internal medicine attendings at an academic medical center, May to August 2013.

Measurements: We used a 24-item, internet-based survey assessing physician-respondents' demographic characteristics, knowledge, and attitudes regarding decisional authority for adult VA-ECMO. Qualitative narratives were also collected.

Main results: A total of 179 physicians completed the survey (15 percent response rate); 48 percent attendings and 52 percent residents/fellows. Only 32 percent of the respondents indicated that a surrogate's consent should be required to discontinue VA-ECMO; 56 percent felt that physicians should have the right to discontinue VA-ECMO over a surrogate's objection. Those who self-reported as "knowledgeable" about VA-ECMO, compared to those who did not, more frequently replied that there should not be presumed consent for VA-ECMO (47.6 percent versus 33.3 percent, p = 0.007), that physicians should have the right to discontinue VA-ECMO over a surrogate's objection (76.2 percent versus 50 percent, p = 0.02) and that, given its cost, the use of VA-ECMO should be restricted (81.0 percent versus 54.4 percent, p = 0.005).

Conclusions: Surveyed physicians, especially those who self-reported as knowledgeable about VA-ECMO and/or were specialists in pulmonary/critical care, favored a medical locus of decisional authority for VA-ECMO. VA-ECMO is complex, and the data may (1) reflect physicians' hesitance to cede authority to presumably less knowledgeable patients and surrogates, (2) stem from a stewardship of resources perspective, and/or (3) point to practical efforts to avoid futility and utility disputes. Whether these results indicate a more widespread reversion to paternalism or a more circumscribed usurping of decisional authority occasioned by VA-ECMO necessitates further study.

医生对启动和撤除 VA-ECMO 决策权的态度调查:共同决策的结果和伦理意义。
目的:尽管与过去相比,患者有了更大的自主权,共同决策也被推崇为医患合作的首选模式,但在临床实践中,对于复杂、稀缺和资源密集型医疗疗法的主要决策权归属:患者及其代理人还是医生,仍然存在紧张关系。我们评估了医生对成人静脉体外膜肺氧合(VA-ECMO)决策权的态度,并假设他们会倾向于医疗决策权:2013年5月至8月,对一家学术医疗中心的住院医师/研究员和内科主治医师进行调查:我们使用 24 个项目的网络调查,评估受访医生的人口统计学特征、知识以及对成人 VA-ECMO 决策权的态度。我们还收集了定性叙述:共有 179 名医生完成了调查(回复率为 15%);其中 48% 为主治医生,52% 为住院医生/研究员。只有 32% 的受访者表示中止 VA-ECMO 需要得到代治者的同意;56% 的受访者认为医生有权在代治者反对的情况下中止 VA-ECMO。与不了解 VA-ECMO 的人相比,自称对 VA-ECMO 有 "了解 "的人更多地回答 VA-ECMO 不应假定获得同意(47.6% 对 33.3%,P = 0.007),医生应有权在代理医生反对的情况下停止使用 VA-ECMO(76.2% 对 50%,p = 0.02),考虑到 VA-ECMO 的成本,应限制其使用(81.0% 对 54.4%,p = 0.005):结论:接受调查的医生,尤其是那些自称了解 VA-ECMO 和/或肺部/重症监护方面的专家的医生,都赞成 VA-ECMO 的决策权应由医学界掌握。VA-ECMO很复杂,这些数据可能(1)反映了医生不愿将权力让给可能知识较少的患者和代理患者,(2)源于资源管理的角度,和/或(3)指向避免徒劳和效用争议的实际努力。至于这些结果是表明VA-ECMO导致了更广泛的家长制回归,还是更有限的篡夺决定权,还有待进一步研究。
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
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
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