Clinical and ethical challenges in decision-making for patients with disorders of consciousness and locked-in syndrome from Chinese neurologists' perspectives.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders Pub Date : 2024-10-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562864241283328
Meiqi Li, Yifan Yan, Katja Kuehlmeyer, Wangshan Huang, Steven Laureys, Haibo Di
{"title":"Clinical and ethical challenges in decision-making for patients with disorders of consciousness and locked-in syndrome from Chinese neurologists' perspectives.","authors":"Meiqi Li, Yifan Yan, Katja Kuehlmeyer, Wangshan Huang, Steven Laureys, Haibo Di","doi":"10.1177/17562864241283328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The diagnosis of and life-sustaining treatment (LST) for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) and locked-in syndrome (LIS) have been the subject of intense debate.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aim to investigate the application of diagnostic knowledge, opinions about the administration of LST, and ethical challenges related to DoC and LIS.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was conducted among Chinese neurologists. Questionnaires included three vignettes (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS); minimally conscious state (MCS), and LIS). They were randomly distributed among neurologists from August 2018 to December 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A sample of 360 questionnaires was included (response rate: 78%). Overall, 63% of the participants chose the correct diagnostic category. The neurologists who received the MCS case chose the category more accurately than the neurologists with the UWS (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and LIS case (<i>p</i> = 0.002). Most neurologists preferred never to limit LST for their patients (47%, 63%, and 67% in UWS, MCS, and LIS groups, <i>p</i> = 0.052). A large group of neurologists believed UWS patients could feel pain (73%), with no difference from MCS and LIS patients (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Deciding for patients in the absence of surrogates was rated extremely challenging.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A large proportion of Chinese neurologists in our study didn't apply the accurate diagnostic categories to the description of DoC and LIS patients. This calls for more education and training. Most Chinese neurologists were reluctant to limit LST for patients. This may indicate that there may be a need to emphasize the allocation of more resources toward long-term care in China.</p>","PeriodicalId":22980,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders","volume":"17 ","pages":"17562864241283328"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462555/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562864241283328","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of and life-sustaining treatment (LST) for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) and locked-in syndrome (LIS) have been the subject of intense debate.

Objective: We aim to investigate the application of diagnostic knowledge, opinions about the administration of LST, and ethical challenges related to DoC and LIS.

Design: A cross-sectional study.

Methods: A survey was conducted among Chinese neurologists. Questionnaires included three vignettes (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS); minimally conscious state (MCS), and LIS). They were randomly distributed among neurologists from August 2018 to December 2019.

Results: A sample of 360 questionnaires was included (response rate: 78%). Overall, 63% of the participants chose the correct diagnostic category. The neurologists who received the MCS case chose the category more accurately than the neurologists with the UWS (p < 0.001) and LIS case (p = 0.002). Most neurologists preferred never to limit LST for their patients (47%, 63%, and 67% in UWS, MCS, and LIS groups, p = 0.052). A large group of neurologists believed UWS patients could feel pain (73%), with no difference from MCS and LIS patients (p > 0.05). Deciding for patients in the absence of surrogates was rated extremely challenging.

Conclusion: A large proportion of Chinese neurologists in our study didn't apply the accurate diagnostic categories to the description of DoC and LIS patients. This calls for more education and training. Most Chinese neurologists were reluctant to limit LST for patients. This may indicate that there may be a need to emphasize the allocation of more resources toward long-term care in China.

从中国神经科医生的角度看意识障碍和锁定综合征患者决策中的临床和伦理挑战。
背景:意识障碍(DoC)和锁定综合征(LIS)患者的诊断和维持生命治疗(LST)一直是激烈争论的主题:我们旨在调查诊断知识的应用、对 LST 施用的看法以及与 DoC 和 LIS 相关的伦理挑战:设计:横断面研究:方法:对中国的神经科医生进行调查。问卷包括三个小故事(无反应清醒综合征(UWS)、微意识状态(MCS)和 LIS)。问卷于2018年8月至2019年12月在神经科医生中随机发放:共纳入 360 份问卷样本(回复率:78%)。总体而言,63%的参与者选择了正确的诊断类别。收到 MCS 病例的神经科医生比收到 UWS 病例的神经科医生更准确地选择了类别(P = 0.002)。大多数神经科医生倾向于从不限制患者的 LST(UWS 组、MCS 组和 LIS 组的比例分别为 47%、63% 和 67%,P = 0.052)。大部分神经科医生认为 UWS 患者能感觉到疼痛(73%),与 MCS 和 LIS 患者无差异(p > 0.05)。在没有替代者的情况下为患者做决定被认为极具挑战性:结论:在我们的研究中,很大一部分中国神经科医生在描述DoC和LIS患者时没有应用准确的诊断类别。这需要更多的教育和培训。大多数中国神经科医生不愿意限制患者的 LST。这可能表明,在中国需要强调为长期护理分配更多资源。
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
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.70%
发文量
62
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders is a peer-reviewed, open access journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of neurology. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in neurology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area.
×
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