"To Be or Not to Be"-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized People Who Have a Low Probability of Benefit: Qualitative Analysis of Semi-structured Interviews.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Daniel Kobewka, Yasmin Lalani, Victoria Shaffer, Tolulope Adewole, Kiefer Lypka, Pete Wegier
{"title":"\"To Be or Not to Be\"-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized People Who Have a Low Probability of Benefit: Qualitative Analysis of Semi-structured Interviews.","authors":"Daniel Kobewka,&nbsp;Yasmin Lalani,&nbsp;Victoria Shaffer,&nbsp;Tolulope Adewole,&nbsp;Kiefer Lypka,&nbsp;Pete Wegier","doi":"10.1177/23814683231168589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our aim was to understand the decision making of patients in hospital who wanted cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite low probability of benefit.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included patients admitted to general medical wards who had a low chance of surviving in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and had an order in the chart to administer CPR. We developed an interview guide to explore participants' decision-making process, sources of information, and emotions associated with this decision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We developed 3 themes from the data. 1) \"Life is worth living . . . for now\": Participants describe their enjoyment of life and desire to carry on in their current state. 2) \"Making sense of CPR outcomes\": Participants saw CPR outcomes as binary, either they live, or they die; deciding not to receive CPR means choosing death. Participants were optimistic they would survive CPR and cited personal experience and TV as information sources. 3) \"Decision process\": Participants did not engage in shared decision making. Instead, they were asked a binary yes/no question with no reflection on their values or discussion about harms or benefits.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The probability of successful CPR in our sample is unknown. Findings may be different in a population who is imminently dying but still requesting CPR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants chose CPR because they perceived life as worth living and CPR as a chance worth taking. Participants did not want to be left in a severely debilitated state but did not have accurate information about this risk.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Decision making about CPR in-hospital can be improved if it is grounded in accurate risk understanding and the patient's values and wishes.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"8 1","pages":"23814683231168589"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d7/b7/10.1177_23814683231168589.PMC10141296.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683231168589","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Our aim was to understand the decision making of patients in hospital who wanted cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite low probability of benefit.

Methods: We included patients admitted to general medical wards who had a low chance of surviving in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and had an order in the chart to administer CPR. We developed an interview guide to explore participants' decision-making process, sources of information, and emotions associated with this decision.

Results: We developed 3 themes from the data. 1) "Life is worth living . . . for now": Participants describe their enjoyment of life and desire to carry on in their current state. 2) "Making sense of CPR outcomes": Participants saw CPR outcomes as binary, either they live, or they die; deciding not to receive CPR means choosing death. Participants were optimistic they would survive CPR and cited personal experience and TV as information sources. 3) "Decision process": Participants did not engage in shared decision making. Instead, they were asked a binary yes/no question with no reflection on their values or discussion about harms or benefits.

Limitations: The probability of successful CPR in our sample is unknown. Findings may be different in a population who is imminently dying but still requesting CPR.

Conclusions: Participants chose CPR because they perceived life as worth living and CPR as a chance worth taking. Participants did not want to be left in a severely debilitated state but did not have accurate information about this risk.

Implications: Decision making about CPR in-hospital can be improved if it is grounded in accurate risk understanding and the patient's values and wishes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

“生存还是毁灭”——低获益概率住院患者的心肺复苏:半结构化访谈的定性分析。
目的:我们的目的是了解住院患者在低获益概率情况下需要心肺复苏的决策。方法:我们纳入了住院普通病房的患者,他们在医院心肺复苏(CPR)中存活的机会很低,并且在病历中有进行心肺复苏的命令。我们开发了一份访谈指南,以探索参与者的决策过程、信息来源以及与此决策相关的情绪。结果:我们从数据中发展出3个主题。1)“生命值得活下去……“暂时”:参与者描述了他们对生活的享受,并希望在目前的状态下继续下去。2) “理解心肺复苏术的结果”:参与者认为心肺复苏术的结果是二元的,要么活着,要么死亡;决定不接受心肺复苏术就意味着选择死亡。参与者们乐观地认为自己能在心肺复苏术中存活下来,并将个人经历和电视作为信息来源。3)“决策过程”:参与者没有参与共同决策。相反,他们被问了一个二元的是或否问题,没有反思他们的价值观或讨论危害或利益。局限性:我们的样本中CPR成功的概率是未知的。对于即将死亡但仍要求心肺复苏术的人群,结果可能会有所不同。结论:参与者选择心肺复苏术是因为他们认为生命值得活下去,心肺复苏术是一个值得冒险的机会。参与者不希望被留在一个严重衰弱的状态,但没有关于这种风险的准确信息。结论:基于准确的风险理解和患者的价值观和愿望,可以改善院内心肺复苏术的决策。
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
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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