重症监护中的同意:患者和家属观点的一致性。模拟研究。

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Olaf Boenisch, Lena Schirmer, Antonia Zapf, Dagmar Lühmann, Burkhard Grein, Katrin Bangert-Tobies, Tobias B Huber, Hermann Reichenspurner, Stefan Blankenberg, Geraldine de Heer, Peter Tohsche, Martin Scherer, Ingmar Schäfer, Stefan Kluge
{"title":"重症监护中的同意:患者和家属观点的一致性。模拟研究。","authors":"Olaf Boenisch, Lena Schirmer, Antonia Zapf, Dagmar Lühmann, Burkhard Grein, Katrin Bangert-Tobies, Tobias B Huber, Hermann Reichenspurner, Stefan Blankenberg, Geraldine de Heer, Peter Tohsche, Martin Scherer, Ingmar Schäfer, Stefan Kluge","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many patients in intensive care cannot communicate their preferences about treatment, therapeutic goals, and expectations of quality of life, and physicians must therefore speak to their families to determine what they would want. We studied the accordance between patients' preferences about intensive care and the worst impairment of quality of life that they would be willing to accept and their families' assessment of these preferences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inpatients on non-intensive-care wards at risk for future need of intensive care and their relatives were separately asked about the patient's wishes concerning eight treatment options and six quality-of-life goals. Degrees of accordance were studied with simple matching and Manhattan Distance Scores, and associations between patient features and degrees of accordance were determined by linear regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Actual and presumed patient wishes agreed in 82.1% of cases on average. Depending on the measure in question, 1.0% to 8.6% of families wrongly thought that the patient would reject it, and 0% to 6.7% wrongly thought that the patient would accept it. The postulated and actual wishes of the patient about tolerable impairments of quality of life agreed in 86.4% of cases on average. Degrees of accordance were greater when the family members' wishes for themselves more closely resembled those of the patient (adjusted mean differences: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [0.39; 0.65], p < 0.001 and 0.66 [0.51; 0.81], p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When patients' wishes are misjudged, the treatment they receive may not be in their best interest. Clear communication ahead of time between patients and their relatives, as well as the provision of information on this topic in advance by medical personnel, may lessen uncertainty about future intensive care.</p>","PeriodicalId":11258,"journal":{"name":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","volume":" Forthcoming","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consent in Intensive Care: The Concurrence of Patients' and Families' Viewpoints. A Simulation Study\",\"authors\":\"Olaf Boenisch, Lena Schirmer, Antonia Zapf, Dagmar Lühmann, Burkhard Grein, Katrin Bangert-Tobies, Tobias B Huber, Hermann Reichenspurner, Stefan Blankenberg, Geraldine de Heer, Peter Tohsche, Martin Scherer, Ingmar Schäfer, Stefan Kluge\",\"doi\":\"10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0242\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many patients in intensive care cannot communicate their preferences about treatment, therapeutic goals, and expectations of quality of life, and physicians must therefore speak to their families to determine what they would want. We studied the accordance between patients' preferences about intensive care and the worst impairment of quality of life that they would be willing to accept and their families' assessment of these preferences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inpatients on non-intensive-care wards at risk for future need of intensive care and their relatives were separately asked about the patient's wishes concerning eight treatment options and six quality-of-life goals. Degrees of accordance were studied with simple matching and Manhattan Distance Scores, and associations between patient features and degrees of accordance were determined by linear regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Actual and presumed patient wishes agreed in 82.1% of cases on average. Depending on the measure in question, 1.0% to 8.6% of families wrongly thought that the patient would reject it, and 0% to 6.7% wrongly thought that the patient would accept it. The postulated and actual wishes of the patient about tolerable impairments of quality of life agreed in 86.4% of cases on average. Degrees of accordance were greater when the family members' wishes for themselves more closely resembled those of the patient (adjusted mean differences: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [0.39; 0.65], p < 0.001 and 0.66 [0.51; 0.81], p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When patients' wishes are misjudged, the treatment they receive may not be in their best interest. Clear communication ahead of time between patients and their relatives, as well as the provision of information on this topic in advance by medical personnel, may lessen uncertainty about future intensive care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Deutsches Arzteblatt international\",\"volume\":\" Forthcoming\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Deutsches Arzteblatt international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0242\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0242","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:许多重症监护患者无法表达他们对治疗的偏好、治疗目标和对生活质量的期望,因此医生必须与他们的家人交谈,以确定他们想要什么。我们研究了患者对重症监护的偏好和他们愿意接受的最严重的生活质量损害与家人对这些偏好的评估之间的一致性。方法:对未来可能需要重症监护的非重症监护病房住院患者及其亲属分别询问患者对8种治疗方案和6种生活质量目标的意愿。通过简单匹配和曼哈顿距离评分来研究符合度,并通过线性回归分析确定患者特征与符合度之间的关系。结果:平均82.1%的病例符合患者的实际和假定愿望。根据所讨论的措施,1.0%至8.6%的家庭错误地认为患者会拒绝它,0%至6.7%的家庭错误地认为患者会接受它。平均86.4%的患者对可容忍的生活质量损害的假设和实际愿望一致。当家属对自己的愿望与患者的愿望更接近时,符合程度更大(调整后的平均差异为0.52,95%可信区间[0.39;0.65],p < 0.001;调整后的平均差异为0.66 [0.51;0.81],p < 0.001)。结论:当病人的愿望被错误判断时,他们所接受的治疗可能并不符合他们的最佳利益。患者及其家属之间提前进行明确沟通,以及医务人员提前提供有关这一主题的信息,可能会减少对未来重症监护的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consent in Intensive Care: The Concurrence of Patients' and Families' Viewpoints. A Simulation Study

Background: Many patients in intensive care cannot communicate their preferences about treatment, therapeutic goals, and expectations of quality of life, and physicians must therefore speak to their families to determine what they would want. We studied the accordance between patients' preferences about intensive care and the worst impairment of quality of life that they would be willing to accept and their families' assessment of these preferences.

Methods: Inpatients on non-intensive-care wards at risk for future need of intensive care and their relatives were separately asked about the patient's wishes concerning eight treatment options and six quality-of-life goals. Degrees of accordance were studied with simple matching and Manhattan Distance Scores, and associations between patient features and degrees of accordance were determined by linear regression analysis.

Results: Actual and presumed patient wishes agreed in 82.1% of cases on average. Depending on the measure in question, 1.0% to 8.6% of families wrongly thought that the patient would reject it, and 0% to 6.7% wrongly thought that the patient would accept it. The postulated and actual wishes of the patient about tolerable impairments of quality of life agreed in 86.4% of cases on average. Degrees of accordance were greater when the family members' wishes for themselves more closely resembled those of the patient (adjusted mean differences: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [0.39; 0.65], p < 0.001 and 0.66 [0.51; 0.81], p < 0.001).

Conclusion: When patients' wishes are misjudged, the treatment they receive may not be in their best interest. Clear communication ahead of time between patients and their relatives, as well as the provision of information on this topic in advance by medical personnel, may lessen uncertainty about future intensive care.

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
Deutsches Arzteblatt international
Deutsches Arzteblatt international 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Deutsches Ärzteblatt International is a bilingual (German and English) weekly online journal that focuses on clinical medicine and public health. It serves as the official publication for both the German Medical Association and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. The journal is dedicated to publishing independent, peer-reviewed articles that cover a wide range of clinical medicine disciplines. It also features editorials and a dedicated section for scientific discussion, known as correspondence. The journal aims to provide valuable medical information to its international readership and offers insights into the German medical landscape. Since its launch in January 2008, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International has been recognized and included in several prestigious databases, which helps to ensure its content is accessible and credible to the global medical community. These databases include: Carelit CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Compendex DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database) EMNursing GEOBASE (Geoscience & Environmental Data) HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative) Index Copernicus Medline (MEDLARS Online) Medpilot PsycINFO (Psychological Information Database) Science Citation Index Expanded Scopus By being indexed in these databases, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International's articles are made available to researchers, clinicians, and healthcare professionals worldwide, contributing to the global exchange of medical knowledge and research.
×
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
小红书