在脑死亡对话中医生沟通的定性分析:死亡与心跳。

IF 2.3 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurology. Clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-04 DOI:10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200484
Anoushka Rao, Jason X Shen, Paul Graham Fisher, David Magnus
{"title":"在脑死亡对话中医生沟通的定性分析:死亡与心跳。","authors":"Anoushka Rao, Jason X Shen, Paul Graham Fisher, David Magnus","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>In recent decades, many legal cases have resulted from physicians ineffectively communicating to a family that their loved one is brain dead (brain dead/death by neurologic criteria [BD/DNC]). Although the definition of BD/DNC has recently undergone revision, little research has been conducted to establish optimal approaches in communicating BD/DNC status to families. The aim of this study was to characterize what highly experienced physicians perceive to be the best communication practices and language choices during BD/DNC conversations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with physician leaders in the field of BD/DNC between September 2023 and January 2024. All interviews were conducted through Zoom. Twenty expert physician participants were recruited from multiple institutions across the United States through convenience sampling. Participants were current or former attending physicians whose practices at academic institutions involved communication with families about BD/DNC in either the pediatric or adult setting. Participants completed a Qualtrics form containing questions about their demographic background and practice characteristics, including an estimate of the number of times they communicated BD/DNC to patient families. Semistructured interviews were conducted with each of the participants and included hypothetical scenarios and views about best practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using 20 qualitative interview transcripts, we identified multiple areas of agreement and disagreement among expert physicians regarding best practices in communicating BD/DNC status. While physicians concurred on specific language to use and avoid, they differed on whether to use the word \"coma,\" on when to introduce the possibility of brain death, and on whether to analogize with cardiac death. There was strong agreement on the utility of visualization through imaging and family attendance at BD/DNC testing. Finally, physicians were in consensus that multiple family meetings with the same providers are crucial for successful BD/DNC communication.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study described main convergences and divergences in physician language during BD/DNC conversations and used qualitative data to present a \"train journey\" theory of ideal physician communication with families. By investigating and improving physician communication styles during BD/DNC conversations, the medical community may ameliorate the legal and medical fallout that results from clinical miscommunication.</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":"15 4","pages":"e200484"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153502/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Qualitative Analysis of Physician Communication During Brain Death Conversations: Dead With a Heartbeat.\",\"authors\":\"Anoushka Rao, Jason X Shen, Paul Graham Fisher, David Magnus\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>In recent decades, many legal cases have resulted from physicians ineffectively communicating to a family that their loved one is brain dead (brain dead/death by neurologic criteria [BD/DNC]). Although the definition of BD/DNC has recently undergone revision, little research has been conducted to establish optimal approaches in communicating BD/DNC status to families. The aim of this study was to characterize what highly experienced physicians perceive to be the best communication practices and language choices during BD/DNC conversations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with physician leaders in the field of BD/DNC between September 2023 and January 2024. All interviews were conducted through Zoom. Twenty expert physician participants were recruited from multiple institutions across the United States through convenience sampling. Participants were current or former attending physicians whose practices at academic institutions involved communication with families about BD/DNC in either the pediatric or adult setting. Participants completed a Qualtrics form containing questions about their demographic background and practice characteristics, including an estimate of the number of times they communicated BD/DNC to patient families. Semistructured interviews were conducted with each of the participants and included hypothetical scenarios and views about best practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using 20 qualitative interview transcripts, we identified multiple areas of agreement and disagreement among expert physicians regarding best practices in communicating BD/DNC status. While physicians concurred on specific language to use and avoid, they differed on whether to use the word \\\"coma,\\\" on when to introduce the possibility of brain death, and on whether to analogize with cardiac death. There was strong agreement on the utility of visualization through imaging and family attendance at BD/DNC testing. Finally, physicians were in consensus that multiple family meetings with the same providers are crucial for successful BD/DNC communication.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study described main convergences and divergences in physician language during BD/DNC conversations and used qualitative data to present a \\\"train journey\\\" theory of ideal physician communication with families. By investigating and improving physician communication styles during BD/DNC conversations, the medical community may ameliorate the legal and medical fallout that results from clinical miscommunication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology. Clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"e200484\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153502/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology. Clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200484\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:近几十年来,许多法律案件都是由于医生没有有效地向家属传达他们所爱的人是脑死亡(脑死亡/神经标准死亡[BD/DNC])。虽然BD/DNC的定义最近经历了修订,但很少有研究建立向家庭传达BD/DNC状态的最佳方法。本研究的目的是描述经验丰富的医生在BD/DNC对话中认为的最佳沟通实践和语言选择。方法:在这项定性研究中,我们在2023年9月至2024年1月期间对BD/DNC领域的医生领导进行了半结构化的深度访谈。所有采访都是通过Zoom进行的。通过方便抽样,从美国多个机构招募了20名专家医生。参与者是目前或以前的主治医生,他们在学术机构的实践涉及与儿童或成人家庭沟通BD/DNC。参与者完成了一份质量表,其中包含有关其人口统计学背景和实践特征的问题,包括他们向患者家属传达BD/DNC的估计次数。对每个参与者进行了半结构化访谈,包括对最佳实践的假设场景和观点。结果:使用20个定性访谈记录,我们确定了专家医生在沟通BD/DNC状态的最佳实践方面的多个共识和分歧。虽然医生们在使用和避免使用的特定语言上意见一致,但他们在是否使用“昏迷”一词、何时引入脑死亡的可能性、以及是否将其与心源性死亡类比等问题上存在分歧。通过成像和家庭出席BD/DNC测试,对可视化的效用有强烈的共识。最后,医生们一致认为,与同一提供者进行多次家庭会议对于成功的BD/DNC沟通至关重要。讨论:本研究描述了BD/DNC对话中医生语言的主要趋同和差异,并使用定性数据提出了理想医生与家庭沟通的“火车之旅”理论。通过调查和改进医生在BD/DNC对话中的沟通方式,医学界可以改善因临床沟通不端而导致的法律和医疗后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Qualitative Analysis of Physician Communication During Brain Death Conversations: Dead With a Heartbeat.

Background and objectives: In recent decades, many legal cases have resulted from physicians ineffectively communicating to a family that their loved one is brain dead (brain dead/death by neurologic criteria [BD/DNC]). Although the definition of BD/DNC has recently undergone revision, little research has been conducted to establish optimal approaches in communicating BD/DNC status to families. The aim of this study was to characterize what highly experienced physicians perceive to be the best communication practices and language choices during BD/DNC conversations.

Methods: In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with physician leaders in the field of BD/DNC between September 2023 and January 2024. All interviews were conducted through Zoom. Twenty expert physician participants were recruited from multiple institutions across the United States through convenience sampling. Participants were current or former attending physicians whose practices at academic institutions involved communication with families about BD/DNC in either the pediatric or adult setting. Participants completed a Qualtrics form containing questions about their demographic background and practice characteristics, including an estimate of the number of times they communicated BD/DNC to patient families. Semistructured interviews were conducted with each of the participants and included hypothetical scenarios and views about best practices.

Results: Using 20 qualitative interview transcripts, we identified multiple areas of agreement and disagreement among expert physicians regarding best practices in communicating BD/DNC status. While physicians concurred on specific language to use and avoid, they differed on whether to use the word "coma," on when to introduce the possibility of brain death, and on whether to analogize with cardiac death. There was strong agreement on the utility of visualization through imaging and family attendance at BD/DNC testing. Finally, physicians were in consensus that multiple family meetings with the same providers are crucial for successful BD/DNC communication.

Discussion: This study described main convergences and divergences in physician language during BD/DNC conversations and used qualitative data to present a "train journey" theory of ideal physician communication with families. By investigating and improving physician communication styles during BD/DNC conversations, the medical community may ameliorate the legal and medical fallout that results from clinical miscommunication.

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
Neurology. Clinical practice
Neurology. Clinical practice CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信