RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Code status discussions may fail to address patients' treatment-related goals and their knowledge of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study aimed to investigate patients' resuscitation preferences, knowledge of CPR and goals of care. Design, setting, patients and measurements: 135 adults were interviewed within 48 h of admission to a general medical service in an academic medical centre, querying code status preferences, knowledge about CPR and its outcome probabilities and goals of care. Medical records were reviewed for clinical information and code status documentation. RESULTS: 41 (30.4%) patients had discussed CPR with their doctor, 116 (85.9%) patients preferred full code status and 11 (8.1%) patients expressed code status preferences different from the code status documented in their medical record. When queried about seven possible goals of care, patients affirmed an average of 4.9 goals; their single most important goals were broadly distributed, ranging from being cured (n = 36; 26.7%) to being comfortable (n = 8; 5.9%). Patients' mean estimate of survival to discharge after CPR was 60.4%. Most patients believed it was helpful to discuss goals of care (n = 95; 70.4%) and the chances of surviving in hospital CPR (n = 112; 83.0%). Some patients expressed a desire to change their code status after receiving information about survival following in hospital CPR (n = 11; 8.1%) or after discussing goals of care (n = 2; 1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Doctors need to address patients' knowledge about CPR and take steps to avoid discrepancies between treatment orders and patients' preferences. Addressing CPR outcome probabilities and goals of care during code status discussions may improve patients' knowledge and influence their preferences.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Discussions about medical errors facilitate professional learning for physicians and may provide emotional support after an error, but little is known about physicians' attitudes and practices regarding error discussions with colleagues. METHODS: Survey of faculty and resident physicians in generalist specialties in Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the US to investigate attitudes and practices regarding error discussions, likelihood of discussing hypothetical errors, experience role-modelling error discussions and demographic variables. RESULTS: Responses were received from 338 participants (response rate = 74%). In all, 73% of respondents indicated they usually discuss their mistakes with colleagues, 70% believed discussing mistakes strengthens professional relationships and 89% knew at least one colleague who would be a supportive listener. Motivations for error discussions included wanting to learn whether a colleague would have made the same decision (91%), wanting colleagues to learn from the mistake (80%) and wanting to receive support (79%). Given hypothetical scenarios, most respondents indicated they would likely discuss an error resulting in no harm (77%), minor harm (87%) or major harm (94%). Fifty-seven percent of physicians had tried to serve as a role model by discussing an error and role-modelling was more likely among those who had previously observed an error discussion (OR 4.17, CI 2.34 to 7.42). CONCLUSIONS: Most generalist physicians in teaching hospitals report that they usually discuss their errors with colleagues, and more than half have tried to role-model discussions. However, a significant number of these physicians report that they do not usually discuss their errors and some do not know colleagues who would be supportive listeners.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of support for terminal sedation among internists, determine whether support for terminal sedation is accompanied by support for physician assisted suicide (PAS), and explore characteristics of internists who support terminal sedation but not assisted suicide. DESIGN: A statewide, anonymous postal survey. SETTING: Connecticut, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 677 Connecticut members of the American College of Physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Attitudes toward terminal sedation and assisted suicide; experience providing primary care to terminally ill patients; demographic and religious characteristics. RESULTS: 78% of respondents believed that if a terminally ill patient has intractable pain despite aggressive analgesia, it is ethically appropriate to provide terminal sedation (diminish consciousness to halt the experience of pain). Of those who favoured terminal sedation, 38% also agreed that PAS is ethically appropriate in some circumstances. Along a three point spectrum of aggressiveness in end of life care, the plurality of respondents (47%) were in the middle, agreeing with terminal sedation but not with PAS. Compared with respondents who were less aggressive or more aggressive, physicians in this middle group were more likely to report having more experience providing primary care to terminally ill patients (p = 0.02) and attending religious services more frequently (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Support for terminal sedation was widespread in this population of physicians, and most who agreed with terminal sedation did not support PAS. Most internists who support aggressive palliation appear likely to draw an ethical line between terminal sedation and assisted suicide.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In the United States and Germany before World War II, physicians participated in state-authorized eugenic sterilization programs in an attempt to prevent persons deemed to possess undesirable heritable characteristics from propagating. A comparison of U.S. and German histories reveals similarities that argue against easy dismissal of a Nazi analogy. On the basis of a review of editorials in New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association from 1930 to 1945 it is difficult to accept the suggestion that the alliance between the medical profession and the eugenics movement in the United States was short-lived. Comparison of the histories of the eugenic sterilization campaigns in the United States and Nazi Germany reveals important similarities of motivation, intent, and strategy and differences that explain why support for eugenic sterilization in the United States gradually weakened. The eugenics movement in Germany was influenced by economic crisis, radical nationalism, Hitler's totalitarianism, and the medical profession's willing participation and attraction to Nazism for financial and ideological reasons. In the United States, a combination of public unease, Roman Catholic opposition, federal democracy, judicial review, and critical scrutiny by the medical profession reversed the momentum of the eugenics movement and led to the conclusion that eugenic sterilization should be voluntary.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of spiritual beliefs in HIV-positive patients' end-of-life decisions. DESIGN: Inperson, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: An HIV/AIDS floor of an urban, university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Ninety hospitalized HIV-positive patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prior discussions about advance directives, possession of a living will (written advance directive), fear of death, professions of hope and purpose in life, religious beliefs and practices, guilt about HIV infection, and perception of HIV as punishment. RESULTS: Of 104 eligible patients, 90 agreed to be interviewed. Twenty-four per cent of patients had discussed their resuscitation status with a physician and 17% possessed a living will; 44% of patients felt guilty about their HIV infection, 32% expressed fear of death, and 26% felt their disease was some form of punishment. Prior discussions about resuscitation status were less likely in those who perceived HIV as punishment (P=0.009) and more likely in those who believed in God's forgiveness (P=0.043). A living will was more common in those who prayed daily (P=0.025) and in those whose belief in God helped them when thinking about death (P=0.065). Fear of death was more likely in those who perceived HIV as punishment (P=0.01) or felt guilty about having HIV (P=0.039), and less likely in those who read the Bible frequently (P=0.01) or attended church regularly (P=0.015). Outcome measures did not vary significantly according sex, race, HIV risk factors, or education level. CONCLUSIONS: In this HIV-positive population, spiritual beliefs and religious practices appeared to play a role in end-of-life decisions. Discussions about end-of-life decisions may be facilitated by a patient's belief in a forgiving God and impeded by a patient's interpretation of HIV infection as punishment. Health-care providers need to recognize patients' spiritual beliefs and incorporate them into discussions about terminal care.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)