在黎巴嫩的一项多中心横断面研究中,儿童卫生保健工作者对代码状态概念的解释。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-20 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2025.1532724
Raymonda Chahrour, Amani Bannout, Marianne Majdalani, Rana Yamout, Ali Ismail, Elma Abou Raffoul, Jihane Moukhaiber
{"title":"在黎巴嫩的一项多中心横断面研究中,儿童卫生保健工作者对代码状态概念的解释。","authors":"Raymonda Chahrour, Amani Bannout, Marianne Majdalani, Rana Yamout, Ali Ismail, Elma Abou Raffoul, Jihane Moukhaiber","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2025.1532724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) use with no considerations given to patient selection or therapeutic aim resulted in extension of the agony, pain and dying process for terminally ill patients. Four Resuscitation-limiting Codes other than Full Code exist. In a conservative country like Lebanon, several factors can influence such decisions, namely the ethical, legal, religious perspectives, pediatric population, and more importantly the lack of protocol, healthcare workers (HCWs) knowledge, understanding and readiness to discuss terminal care with the parents. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the knowledge, behavior and comfort level of Lebanese pediatric HCWs in code status discussions, and to determine major obstacles encountered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a cross-sectional observational study. An anonymous questionnaire has been sent electronically for 400 pediatric HCWs from different hospitals across Lebanon, over a period of 3 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 400 pediatric HCWs recruited, 235 completed the survey. 39.9% of medical doctors (MDs), and 62% of registered nurses (RNs) did not know about code status subtypes. Most of the MDs are using the paternalistic approach. There were significant differences between MDs and RNs regarding their point of view toward code status, but both thought that it was not defined in the Lebanese law (86.7% of MDs vs. 87% of RNs), and are not comfortable in such discussions (79% for MDs vs. 84.8% for RNs). The decisions taken by MDs regarding life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in different resuscitation-limiting codes showed clearly the knowledge gap. Moreover, attendings and trainees differed significantly in their decisions, where the latter seemed more conservative. Pediatric HCWs in Lebanon are facing major obstacles when it comes to code status decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Code status in Lebanon is an immature concept, and pediatric HCWs are challenged with conflicting decisions and obligations when it comes to code status discussions and LSTs. A multidisciplinary approach, with good communication between different members of the medical team would be the best. Addressing the obstacles encountered, and set a clear protocol will not only unify and solidify the HCWs decisions, but will have positive impact and repercussions on the patient care as well.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1532724"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11965644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The interpretation of code status concept among pediatric health care workers, a multicenter cross sectional study across Lebanon.\",\"authors\":\"Raymonda Chahrour, Amani Bannout, Marianne Majdalani, Rana Yamout, Ali Ismail, Elma Abou Raffoul, Jihane Moukhaiber\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmed.2025.1532724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) use with no considerations given to patient selection or therapeutic aim resulted in extension of the agony, pain and dying process for terminally ill patients. Four Resuscitation-limiting Codes other than Full Code exist. In a conservative country like Lebanon, several factors can influence such decisions, namely the ethical, legal, religious perspectives, pediatric population, and more importantly the lack of protocol, healthcare workers (HCWs) knowledge, understanding and readiness to discuss terminal care with the parents. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the knowledge, behavior and comfort level of Lebanese pediatric HCWs in code status discussions, and to determine major obstacles encountered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a cross-sectional observational study. An anonymous questionnaire has been sent electronically for 400 pediatric HCWs from different hospitals across Lebanon, over a period of 3 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 400 pediatric HCWs recruited, 235 completed the survey. 39.9% of medical doctors (MDs), and 62% of registered nurses (RNs) did not know about code status subtypes. Most of the MDs are using the paternalistic approach. There were significant differences between MDs and RNs regarding their point of view toward code status, but both thought that it was not defined in the Lebanese law (86.7% of MDs vs. 87% of RNs), and are not comfortable in such discussions (79% for MDs vs. 84.8% for RNs). The decisions taken by MDs regarding life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in different resuscitation-limiting codes showed clearly the knowledge gap. Moreover, attendings and trainees differed significantly in their decisions, where the latter seemed more conservative. Pediatric HCWs in Lebanon are facing major obstacles when it comes to code status decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Code status in Lebanon is an immature concept, and pediatric HCWs are challenged with conflicting decisions and obligations when it comes to code status discussions and LSTs. A multidisciplinary approach, with good communication between different members of the medical team would be the best. Addressing the obstacles encountered, and set a clear protocol will not only unify and solidify the HCWs decisions, but will have positive impact and repercussions on the patient care as well.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"1532724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11965644/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1532724\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1532724","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在不考虑患者选择和治疗目的的情况下,心肺复苏(CPR)的使用会延长绝症患者的痛苦和死亡过程。除Full Code外,还存在四种复苏限制码。在像黎巴嫩这样的保守国家,有几个因素可以影响这些决定,即伦理、法律、宗教观点、儿科人口,更重要的是缺乏协议、卫生保健工作者(HCWs)的知识、理解和准备与父母讨论临终关怀。本研究的目的是评估黎巴嫩儿科卫生保健员在规范状态讨论中的知识、行为和舒适度,并确定遇到的主要障碍。方法:这是一项横断面观察研究。在三个月的时间里,以电子方式向黎巴嫩各地不同医院的400名儿科卫生保健员发送了一份匿名问卷。结果:在招募的400名儿科卫生保健员中,有235人完成了调查。39.9%的医生(md)和62%的注册护士(RNs)不知道代码状态亚型。大多数医学博士都在使用家长式的方法。MDs和RNs对代码状态的看法存在显著差异,但两者都认为黎巴嫩法律中没有定义(86.7%的MDs对87%的RNs),并且在这样的讨论中感到不舒服(79%的MDs对84.8%的RNs)。在不同的复苏限制代码中,医学博士对维持生命治疗(LSTs)所做的决定清楚地显示了知识差距。此外,主治医生和受训人员在决策上存在显著差异,后者似乎更为保守。黎巴嫩的儿科卫生保健员在决定代码状态方面面临重大障碍。结论:在黎巴嫩,代码状态是一个不成熟的概念,当涉及到代码状态讨论和lst时,儿科医护人员面临着相互冲突的决策和义务的挑战。采用多学科的方法,在医疗团队的不同成员之间进行良好的沟通是最好的。解决遇到的障碍,制定明确的方案,不仅可以统一和巩固卫生保健工作者的决策,而且对患者的护理也会产生积极的影响和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The interpretation of code status concept among pediatric health care workers, a multicenter cross sectional study across Lebanon.

Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) use with no considerations given to patient selection or therapeutic aim resulted in extension of the agony, pain and dying process for terminally ill patients. Four Resuscitation-limiting Codes other than Full Code exist. In a conservative country like Lebanon, several factors can influence such decisions, namely the ethical, legal, religious perspectives, pediatric population, and more importantly the lack of protocol, healthcare workers (HCWs) knowledge, understanding and readiness to discuss terminal care with the parents. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the knowledge, behavior and comfort level of Lebanese pediatric HCWs in code status discussions, and to determine major obstacles encountered.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study. An anonymous questionnaire has been sent electronically for 400 pediatric HCWs from different hospitals across Lebanon, over a period of 3 months.

Results: Of the 400 pediatric HCWs recruited, 235 completed the survey. 39.9% of medical doctors (MDs), and 62% of registered nurses (RNs) did not know about code status subtypes. Most of the MDs are using the paternalistic approach. There were significant differences between MDs and RNs regarding their point of view toward code status, but both thought that it was not defined in the Lebanese law (86.7% of MDs vs. 87% of RNs), and are not comfortable in such discussions (79% for MDs vs. 84.8% for RNs). The decisions taken by MDs regarding life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in different resuscitation-limiting codes showed clearly the knowledge gap. Moreover, attendings and trainees differed significantly in their decisions, where the latter seemed more conservative. Pediatric HCWs in Lebanon are facing major obstacles when it comes to code status decisions.

Conclusion: Code status in Lebanon is an immature concept, and pediatric HCWs are challenged with conflicting decisions and obligations when it comes to code status discussions and LSTs. A multidisciplinary approach, with good communication between different members of the medical team would be the best. Addressing the obstacles encountered, and set a clear protocol will not only unify and solidify the HCWs decisions, but will have positive impact and repercussions on the patient care as well.

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
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
×
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