长期通气的候选决定。

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Holly Hoa Vo, Duncan Keegan, William N Sveen, Benjamin S Wilfond, Georgina Campelia, Carrie M Henderson
{"title":"长期通气的候选决定。","authors":"Holly Hoa Vo, Duncan Keegan, William N Sveen, Benjamin S Wilfond, Georgina Campelia, Carrie M Henderson","doi":"10.1542/peds.2024-066985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decisions to initiate long-term ventilation (LTV) in children with severe neurologic impairment have recently been subject to candidacy determinations by home ventilation teams that exclude patients based on their neurologic status alone. Determinations of whether decisions are inappropriate require careful analysis of specific clinical circumstances and attention to the family's values. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case of a previously healthy child who sustained an acute severe anoxic brain injury and was assessed by the medical team to have a high likelihood of remaining minimally conscious or unconscious. It was determined that he was not a candidate for LTV based on the severity of neurologic impairment. The family disagreed and declined withdrawal of ventilatory support. Drawing upon our backgrounds in intensive care, pulmonology, and bioethics, we offer commentary on utilizing a candidacy-based approach for LTV decisions in children with severe neurologic impairment from variable perspectives, including clinical determinations of inappropriate care, ablest biases and discrimination, and obligations to maintain a just process.</p>","PeriodicalId":20028,"journal":{"name":"Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Candidacy Decisions for Long-term Ventilation.\",\"authors\":\"Holly Hoa Vo, Duncan Keegan, William N Sveen, Benjamin S Wilfond, Georgina Campelia, Carrie M Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1542/peds.2024-066985\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Decisions to initiate long-term ventilation (LTV) in children with severe neurologic impairment have recently been subject to candidacy determinations by home ventilation teams that exclude patients based on their neurologic status alone. Determinations of whether decisions are inappropriate require careful analysis of specific clinical circumstances and attention to the family's values. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case of a previously healthy child who sustained an acute severe anoxic brain injury and was assessed by the medical team to have a high likelihood of remaining minimally conscious or unconscious. It was determined that he was not a candidate for LTV based on the severity of neurologic impairment. The family disagreed and declined withdrawal of ventilatory support. Drawing upon our backgrounds in intensive care, pulmonology, and bioethics, we offer commentary on utilizing a candidacy-based approach for LTV decisions in children with severe neurologic impairment from variable perspectives, including clinical determinations of inappropriate care, ablest biases and discrimination, and obligations to maintain a just process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-066985\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-066985","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近来,家庭通气团队在决定是否对严重神经功能受损的儿童实施长期通气(LTV)时,会仅根据患者的神经功能状况将其排除在外。要判定该决定是否不当,需要仔细分析具体的临床情况并关注家庭的价值观。在本伦理查房中,我们介绍了一个病例:一名原本健康的儿童因急性重度缺氧性脑损伤,经医疗团队评估,其意识极有可能保持微弱或无意识状态。根据神经系统损伤的严重程度,医生认为他不适合接受长程生命支持治疗。家属不同意,并拒绝撤除呼吸机支持。基于我们在重症监护、肺病学和生命伦理学方面的背景,我们从不同的角度,包括不适当护理的临床判定、能力最强者的偏见和歧视,以及维护公正程序的义务等,对采用基于候选资格的方法为患有严重神经功能损伤的儿童做出长程生命支持的决定进行了评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Candidacy Decisions for Long-term Ventilation.

Decisions to initiate long-term ventilation (LTV) in children with severe neurologic impairment have recently been subject to candidacy determinations by home ventilation teams that exclude patients based on their neurologic status alone. Determinations of whether decisions are inappropriate require careful analysis of specific clinical circumstances and attention to the family's values. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case of a previously healthy child who sustained an acute severe anoxic brain injury and was assessed by the medical team to have a high likelihood of remaining minimally conscious or unconscious. It was determined that he was not a candidate for LTV based on the severity of neurologic impairment. The family disagreed and declined withdrawal of ventilatory support. Drawing upon our backgrounds in intensive care, pulmonology, and bioethics, we offer commentary on utilizing a candidacy-based approach for LTV decisions in children with severe neurologic impairment from variable perspectives, including clinical determinations of inappropriate care, ablest biases and discrimination, and obligations to maintain a just process.

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
Pediatrics
Pediatrics 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
791
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Pediatrics® journal is the official flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). It is widely cited in the field of pediatric medicine and is recognized as the leading journal in the field. The journal publishes original research and evidence-based articles, which provide authoritative information to help readers stay up-to-date with the latest developments in pediatric medicine. The content is peer-reviewed and undergoes rigorous evaluation to ensure its quality and reliability. Pediatrics also serves as a valuable resource for conducting new research studies and supporting education and training activities in the field of pediatrics. It aims to enhance the quality of pediatric outpatient and inpatient care by disseminating valuable knowledge and insights. As of 2023, Pediatrics has an impressive Journal Impact Factor (IF) Score of 8.0. The IF is a measure of a journal's influence and importance in the scientific community, with higher scores indicating a greater impact. This score reflects the significance and reach of the research published in Pediatrics, further establishing its prominence in the field of pediatric medicine.
×
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