香港重症监护病房的临终关怀实践:Ethicus-2 研究的结果。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Hong Kong Medical Journal Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-15 DOI:10.12809/hkmj2310944
G M Joynt, S K H Ling, L L Chang, P N W Tsai, G K F Au, D H K So, F L Chow, P K N Lam, A Avidan, C L Sprung, A Lee
{"title":"香港重症监护病房的临终关怀实践:Ethicus-2 研究的结果。","authors":"G M Joynt, S K H Ling, L L Chang, P N W Tsai, G K F Au, D H K So, F L Chow, P K N Lam, A Avidan, C L Sprung, A Lee","doi":"10.12809/hkmj2310944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The need for end-of-life care is common in intensive care units (ICUs). Although guidelines exist, little is known about actual end-of-life care practices in Hong Kong ICUs. The study aim was to provide a detailed description of these practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, multicentre observational sub-analysis of the Ethicus-2 study explored end-of-life practices in eight participating Hong Kong ICUs. Consecutive adult ICU patients admitted during a 6-month period with life-sustaining treatment (LST) limitation or death were included. Follow-up continued until death or 2 months from the initial decision to limit LST.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 4922 screened patients, 548 (11.1%) had LST limitation (withholding or withdrawal) or died (failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation/brain death). Life-sustaining treatment limitation occurred in 455 (83.0%) patients: 353 (77.6%) had decisions to withhold LST and 102 (22.4%) had decisions to withdraw LST. Of those who died without LST limitation, 80 (86.0%) had failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 13 (14.0%) were declared brain dead. Discussions of LST limitation were initiated by ICU physicians in most (86.2%) cases. Shared decision-making between ICU physicians and families was the predominant model; only 6.0% of patients retained decision-making capacity. Primary medical reasons for LST limitation were unresponsiveness to maximal therapy (49.2%) and multiorgan failure (17.1%). The most important consideration for decision-making was the patient's best interest (81.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Life-sustaining treatment limitations are common in Hong Kong ICUs; shared decision-making between physicians and families in the patient's best interest is the predominant model. Loss of decision-making capacity is common at the end of life. Patients should be encouraged to communicate end-of-life treatment preferences to family members/surrogates, or through advance directives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48828,"journal":{"name":"Hong Kong Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":"300-309"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"End-of-life practices in Hong Kong intensive care units: results from the Ethicus-2 study.\",\"authors\":\"G M Joynt, S K H Ling, L L Chang, P N W Tsai, G K F Au, D H K So, F L Chow, P K N Lam, A Avidan, C L Sprung, A Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.12809/hkmj2310944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The need for end-of-life care is common in intensive care units (ICUs). Although guidelines exist, little is known about actual end-of-life care practices in Hong Kong ICUs. The study aim was to provide a detailed description of these practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, multicentre observational sub-analysis of the Ethicus-2 study explored end-of-life practices in eight participating Hong Kong ICUs. Consecutive adult ICU patients admitted during a 6-month period with life-sustaining treatment (LST) limitation or death were included. Follow-up continued until death or 2 months from the initial decision to limit LST.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 4922 screened patients, 548 (11.1%) had LST limitation (withholding or withdrawal) or died (failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation/brain death). Life-sustaining treatment limitation occurred in 455 (83.0%) patients: 353 (77.6%) had decisions to withhold LST and 102 (22.4%) had decisions to withdraw LST. Of those who died without LST limitation, 80 (86.0%) had failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 13 (14.0%) were declared brain dead. Discussions of LST limitation were initiated by ICU physicians in most (86.2%) cases. Shared decision-making between ICU physicians and families was the predominant model; only 6.0% of patients retained decision-making capacity. Primary medical reasons for LST limitation were unresponsiveness to maximal therapy (49.2%) and multiorgan failure (17.1%). The most important consideration for decision-making was the patient's best interest (81.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Life-sustaining treatment limitations are common in Hong Kong ICUs; shared decision-making between physicians and families in the patient's best interest is the predominant model. Loss of decision-making capacity is common at the end of life. Patients should be encouraged to communicate end-of-life treatment preferences to family members/surrogates, or through advance directives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hong Kong Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"300-309\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hong Kong Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj2310944\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hong Kong Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj2310944","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:临终关怀在重症监护病房(ICU)中很常见。虽然已有相关指南,但人们对香港重症监护病房的临终关怀实际做法知之甚少。本研究旨在详细描述这些做法:这项Ethicus-2研究的前瞻性多中心观察性子分析探讨了八家参与研究的香港重症监护病房的临终关怀实践。研究纳入了在 6 个月内入院、生命维持治疗(LST)受限或死亡的连续成人重症监护病房患者。随访一直持续到患者死亡或最初决定限制维持生命治疗两个月后:在 4922 名接受筛查的患者中,548 人(11.1%)的维持生命治疗受到限制(暂停或撤消)或死亡(心肺复苏失败/脑死亡)。455名(83.0%)患者的维持生命治疗受到限制:其中 353 人(77.6%)决定暂停 LST,102 人(22.4%)决定撤消 LST。在未限制 LST 的死亡患者中,80 人(86.0%)心肺复苏失败,13 人(14.0%)被宣布为脑死亡。在大多数(86.2%)病例中,LST限制的讨论都是由重症监护室医生发起的。重症监护室医生和家属共同决策是最主要的模式;只有 6.0% 的患者保留了决策能力。限制 LST 的主要医学原因是对最大治疗无效(49.2%)和多器官功能衰竭(17.1%)。决策时最重要的考虑因素是患者的最佳利益(81.5%):结论:在香港的重症监护病房中,生命维持治疗受限的情况很常见;医生和家属根据患者的最佳利益共同决策是主要模式。生命末期丧失决策能力的情况很常见。应鼓励患者向家人/代理人传达临终治疗偏好,或通过预嘱进行传达。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
End-of-life practices in Hong Kong intensive care units: results from the Ethicus-2 study.

Introduction: The need for end-of-life care is common in intensive care units (ICUs). Although guidelines exist, little is known about actual end-of-life care practices in Hong Kong ICUs. The study aim was to provide a detailed description of these practices.

Methods: This prospective, multicentre observational sub-analysis of the Ethicus-2 study explored end-of-life practices in eight participating Hong Kong ICUs. Consecutive adult ICU patients admitted during a 6-month period with life-sustaining treatment (LST) limitation or death were included. Follow-up continued until death or 2 months from the initial decision to limit LST.

Results: Of 4922 screened patients, 548 (11.1%) had LST limitation (withholding or withdrawal) or died (failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation/brain death). Life-sustaining treatment limitation occurred in 455 (83.0%) patients: 353 (77.6%) had decisions to withhold LST and 102 (22.4%) had decisions to withdraw LST. Of those who died without LST limitation, 80 (86.0%) had failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 13 (14.0%) were declared brain dead. Discussions of LST limitation were initiated by ICU physicians in most (86.2%) cases. Shared decision-making between ICU physicians and families was the predominant model; only 6.0% of patients retained decision-making capacity. Primary medical reasons for LST limitation were unresponsiveness to maximal therapy (49.2%) and multiorgan failure (17.1%). The most important consideration for decision-making was the patient's best interest (81.5%).

Conclusion: Life-sustaining treatment limitations are common in Hong Kong ICUs; shared decision-making between physicians and families in the patient's best interest is the predominant model. Loss of decision-making capacity is common at the end of life. Patients should be encouraged to communicate end-of-life treatment preferences to family members/surrogates, or through advance directives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hong Kong Medical Journal
Hong Kong Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
117
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The HKMJ is a Hong Kong-based, peer-reviewed, general medical journal which is circulated to 6000 readers, including all members of the HKMA and Fellows of the HKAM. The HKMJ publishes original research papers, review articles, medical practice papers, case reports, editorials, commentaries, book reviews, and letters to the Editor. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to clinical practice and research in all branches of medicine. The HKMJ welcomes manuscripts from authors, but usually solicits reviews. Proposals for review papers can be sent to the Managing Editor directly. Please refer to the contact information of the Editorial Office.
×
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