优化围生期新生儿复苏的共同决策。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Luke A Gatta,Emily A Morris,Allison M McCarthy,Sarah S Osmundson
{"title":"优化围生期新生儿复苏的共同决策。","authors":"Luke A Gatta,Emily A Morris,Allison M McCarthy,Sarah S Osmundson","doi":"10.1097/aog.0000000000006070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The delivery of a fetus at the threshold of viability presents clinicians and families with profound medical and ethical dilemmas, particularly regarding whether to initiate neonatal resuscitation. Although professional societies advocate for shared decision making in this context, the practical implementation of this model is challenged by unpredictable outcomes, regional or institutional variability, and human biases. This manuscript explores the theoretical foundations, contemporary evidence, and best practices for shared decision making in the setting of periviability. Supported by research from palliative and critical care medicine, this manuscript then considers how to elicit patient values within shared decision-making conversations, emphasizing preparation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and scenario-based discussion over listing risk-benefit statistics. Tools to support shared decision making, such as the neonatal outcomes calculator and visual decision aids, are discussed with caution for their appropriate application. Lastly, the article covers shared decision making when resuscitation is offered in settings where available interventions fall outside established standards of care. Ultimately, this review aims to support obstetrician-gynecologists in providing goal-concordant, ethically appropriate care at the threshold of viability by equipping them with communication strategies that respect patient autonomy while maintaining professional integrity in the complex and emotionally charged setting of periviability.","PeriodicalId":19483,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and gynecology","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing Shared Decision Making for Neonatal Resuscitation at Periviability.\",\"authors\":\"Luke A Gatta,Emily A Morris,Allison M McCarthy,Sarah S Osmundson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/aog.0000000000006070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The delivery of a fetus at the threshold of viability presents clinicians and families with profound medical and ethical dilemmas, particularly regarding whether to initiate neonatal resuscitation. Although professional societies advocate for shared decision making in this context, the practical implementation of this model is challenged by unpredictable outcomes, regional or institutional variability, and human biases. This manuscript explores the theoretical foundations, contemporary evidence, and best practices for shared decision making in the setting of periviability. Supported by research from palliative and critical care medicine, this manuscript then considers how to elicit patient values within shared decision-making conversations, emphasizing preparation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and scenario-based discussion over listing risk-benefit statistics. Tools to support shared decision making, such as the neonatal outcomes calculator and visual decision aids, are discussed with caution for their appropriate application. Lastly, the article covers shared decision making when resuscitation is offered in settings where available interventions fall outside established standards of care. Ultimately, this review aims to support obstetrician-gynecologists in providing goal-concordant, ethically appropriate care at the threshold of viability by equipping them with communication strategies that respect patient autonomy while maintaining professional integrity in the complex and emotionally charged setting of periviability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000006070\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000006070","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在生存能力阈值的胎儿分娩给临床医生和家庭带来了深刻的医学和伦理困境,特别是关于是否启动新生儿复苏。尽管专业协会提倡在这种情况下共同决策,但这种模式的实际实施受到不可预测结果、区域或制度差异以及人类偏见的挑战。这篇手稿探讨了理论基础,当代证据,以及在周边环境下共同决策的最佳实践。在姑息治疗和重症监护医学研究的支持下,本文考虑了如何在共享决策对话中引出患者价值,强调准备,跨学科合作,以及基于场景的讨论,而不是列出风险-收益统计数据。支持共同决策的工具,如新生儿结局计算器和可视化决策辅助工具,在讨论其适当应用时要谨慎。最后,本文涵盖了在现有干预措施超出既定护理标准的情况下提供复苏时的共同决策。最终,本综述的目的是支持妇产科医生提供目标一致的,道德上适当的护理,在生存能力的门槛,装备他们的沟通策略,尊重病人的自主权,同时保持专业诚信的复杂和情感上充满活力的设置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimizing Shared Decision Making for Neonatal Resuscitation at Periviability.
The delivery of a fetus at the threshold of viability presents clinicians and families with profound medical and ethical dilemmas, particularly regarding whether to initiate neonatal resuscitation. Although professional societies advocate for shared decision making in this context, the practical implementation of this model is challenged by unpredictable outcomes, regional or institutional variability, and human biases. This manuscript explores the theoretical foundations, contemporary evidence, and best practices for shared decision making in the setting of periviability. Supported by research from palliative and critical care medicine, this manuscript then considers how to elicit patient values within shared decision-making conversations, emphasizing preparation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and scenario-based discussion over listing risk-benefit statistics. Tools to support shared decision making, such as the neonatal outcomes calculator and visual decision aids, are discussed with caution for their appropriate application. Lastly, the article covers shared decision making when resuscitation is offered in settings where available interventions fall outside established standards of care. Ultimately, this review aims to support obstetrician-gynecologists in providing goal-concordant, ethically appropriate care at the threshold of viability by equipping them with communication strategies that respect patient autonomy while maintaining professional integrity in the complex and emotionally charged setting of periviability.
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
Obstetrics and gynecology
Obstetrics and gynecology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
867
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: "Obstetrics & Gynecology," affectionately known as "The Green Journal," is the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Since its inception in 1953, the journal has been dedicated to advancing the clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology, as well as related fields. The journal's mission is to promote excellence in these areas by publishing a diverse range of articles that cover translational and clinical topics. "Obstetrics & Gynecology" provides a platform for the dissemination of evidence-based research, clinical guidelines, and expert opinions that are essential for the continuous improvement of women's health care. The journal's content is designed to inform and educate obstetricians, gynecologists, and other healthcare professionals, ensuring that they stay abreast of the latest developments and best practices in their field.
×
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