{"title":"比较泰国和美国急诊临床医生之间的代码状态对话方法:一项调查研究。","authors":"Thidathit Prachanukool, Pongsakorn Atiksawedparit, Suthasinee Senasu, Thapanawong Mitsungnern, Thavinee Trinarongsakul, Suwarat Wongjittraporn, Hannah Oelschlager, Sarayut Kahapana, Kei Ouchi","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2024-213883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Emergency clinicians conduct code status conversations as part of shared decision-making regarding the management of patients with serious life-limiting illnesses. Given that varying sociocultural norms and healthcare systems affect communication, we hypothesised that American and Thai emergency clinicians report different approaches to code status conversations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in one US hospital and four Thai hospitals from December 2021 to November 2022. Using a 5-point Likert Scale, the survey questions focused on clinical practice for procedure-based and value-based components of code status conversations. We developed the survey from a medical communication expert team and then reviewed, refined and validated the questions. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare the asking in code status conversation among American and Thai emergency clinicians and controlled for potential confounding variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received responses from 84 American and 81 Thai emergency clinicians (74% and 70%, respectively). Most of the participants had 6-10 years of clinical experience (n=71, 43%), had code status conversations more than twice each month (n=63, 38%), and had prior palliative care training (n=141, 86%). Over 50% of all emergency clinicians responded 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to incorporate all six procedure-based components but only one of the six value-based components. Compared with Thai emergency clinicians, American emergency clinicians were significantly more likely to ask one procedure-based component (restarting the patient's heart, adjusted OR (aOR) =9.3 (95% CI 3.2 to 26.8)), while less likely to ask another procedure-based component (the patient's preference for vasopressors, aOR=0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.7)), and two value-based components (providing a recommendation, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5), assessing the patient's baseline activity, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the approaches to code status conversations, American and Thai emergency clinicians collectively report asking about procedures rather than personal values, while specific distinctions exist and potentially reflect different cultural approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing approaches to code status conversations between Thai and American emergency clinicians: a survey study.\",\"authors\":\"Thidathit Prachanukool, Pongsakorn Atiksawedparit, Suthasinee Senasu, Thapanawong Mitsungnern, Thavinee Trinarongsakul, Suwarat Wongjittraporn, Hannah Oelschlager, Sarayut Kahapana, Kei Ouchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2024-213883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Emergency clinicians conduct code status conversations as part of shared decision-making regarding the management of patients with serious life-limiting illnesses. Given that varying sociocultural norms and healthcare systems affect communication, we hypothesised that American and Thai emergency clinicians report different approaches to code status conversations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in one US hospital and four Thai hospitals from December 2021 to November 2022. Using a 5-point Likert Scale, the survey questions focused on clinical practice for procedure-based and value-based components of code status conversations. We developed the survey from a medical communication expert team and then reviewed, refined and validated the questions. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare the asking in code status conversation among American and Thai emergency clinicians and controlled for potential confounding variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received responses from 84 American and 81 Thai emergency clinicians (74% and 70%, respectively). Most of the participants had 6-10 years of clinical experience (n=71, 43%), had code status conversations more than twice each month (n=63, 38%), and had prior palliative care training (n=141, 86%). Over 50% of all emergency clinicians responded 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to incorporate all six procedure-based components but only one of the six value-based components. Compared with Thai emergency clinicians, American emergency clinicians were significantly more likely to ask one procedure-based component (restarting the patient's heart, adjusted OR (aOR) =9.3 (95% CI 3.2 to 26.8)), while less likely to ask another procedure-based component (the patient's preference for vasopressors, aOR=0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.7)), and two value-based components (providing a recommendation, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5), assessing the patient's baseline activity, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the approaches to code status conversations, American and Thai emergency clinicians collectively report asking about procedures rather than personal values, while specific distinctions exist and potentially reflect different cultural approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-213883\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-213883","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:急诊临床医生进行代码状态对话,作为严重限制生命的疾病患者管理共同决策的一部分。鉴于不同的社会文化规范和医疗保健系统会影响沟通,我们假设美国和泰国的急诊临床医生报告了不同的编码状态对话方法。方法:于2021年12月至2022年11月在一家美国医院和四家泰国医院进行横断面调查研究。使用5点李克特量表,调查问题集中在基于程序和基于价值的代码状态对话组件的临床实践。我们从一个医疗传播专家团队中开发了这项调查,然后对问题进行了审查、完善和验证。采用多元逻辑回归分析比较美国和泰国急诊临床医生在代码状态对话中的询问情况,并控制潜在的混杂变量。结果:我们收到84名美国和81名泰国急诊临床医生的回复(分别为74%和70%)。大多数参与者具有6-10年的临床经验(n=71, 43%),每月进行两次以上的代码状态对话(n=63, 38%),并且之前接受过姑息治疗培训(n=141, 86%)。超过50%的急诊临床医生回答“非常有可能”或“有些可能”纳入所有六个基于程序的组成部分,但六个基于价值的组成部分中只有一个。与泰国急诊临床医生相比,美国急诊临床医生明显更倾向于询问一个基于程序的成分(重新启动患者心脏,调整后的OR (aOR) =9.3 (95% CI 3.2至26.8)),而不太可能询问另一个基于程序的成分(患者对血管加压药物的偏好,aOR=0.3 (95% CI 0.1至0.7)),以及两个基于价值的成分(提供建议,aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1至0.5)),评估患者的基线活动。aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 ~ 0.4))。结论:在代码状态对话的方法中,美国和泰国的急诊临床医生集体报告询问程序而不是个人价值观,而存在特定的区别,并可能反映不同的文化方法。
Comparing approaches to code status conversations between Thai and American emergency clinicians: a survey study.
Objectives: Emergency clinicians conduct code status conversations as part of shared decision-making regarding the management of patients with serious life-limiting illnesses. Given that varying sociocultural norms and healthcare systems affect communication, we hypothesised that American and Thai emergency clinicians report different approaches to code status conversations.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in one US hospital and four Thai hospitals from December 2021 to November 2022. Using a 5-point Likert Scale, the survey questions focused on clinical practice for procedure-based and value-based components of code status conversations. We developed the survey from a medical communication expert team and then reviewed, refined and validated the questions. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare the asking in code status conversation among American and Thai emergency clinicians and controlled for potential confounding variables.
Results: We received responses from 84 American and 81 Thai emergency clinicians (74% and 70%, respectively). Most of the participants had 6-10 years of clinical experience (n=71, 43%), had code status conversations more than twice each month (n=63, 38%), and had prior palliative care training (n=141, 86%). Over 50% of all emergency clinicians responded 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to incorporate all six procedure-based components but only one of the six value-based components. Compared with Thai emergency clinicians, American emergency clinicians were significantly more likely to ask one procedure-based component (restarting the patient's heart, adjusted OR (aOR) =9.3 (95% CI 3.2 to 26.8)), while less likely to ask another procedure-based component (the patient's preference for vasopressors, aOR=0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.7)), and two value-based components (providing a recommendation, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5), assessing the patient's baseline activity, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4)).
Conclusion: In the approaches to code status conversations, American and Thai emergency clinicians collectively report asking about procedures rather than personal values, while specific distinctions exist and potentially reflect different cultural approaches.
期刊介绍:
The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.