100 Years of Relativistic Cosmology (1917-2017). Part I: From Origins to the Discovery of Universal Expansion (1929)

We are experiencing a period of extreme intellectual effervescence in the area of cosmology. A huge volume of observational data in unprecedented quantity and quality and a more consistent theoretical framework propelled cosmology to an era of precision, turning the discipline into a cutting-edge area of contemporary science. Observations with type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia), showed that the expanding Universe is accelerating, an unexplained fact in the traditional decelerated model. Identifying the cause of this acceleration is the most fundamental problem in the area. As in the scientific renaissance, the solution will guide the course of the discipline in the near future and the possible answers (whether dark energy, some extension of general relativity or a still unknown mechanism) should also leverage the development of physics. In this context, without giving up a pedagogical approach, we present an overview of both the main theoretical results and the most significant observational discoveries of cosmology in the last 100 years. The saga of cosmology will be presented in a trilogy. In this article (Part I), based on the articles by Einstein, de Sitter, Friedmann, Lema\^itre and Hubble, we will describe the period between the origins of cosmology and the discovery of Universal expansion (1929). In Part II, we will see the period from 1930 to 1997, closing with the old standard decelerated model. The Part III will be entirely devoted to the accelerated model of the universe, the cosmic paradigm of the XXI century.Comment: 18 pages, 10 figures. To appear in Revista Brasileira de Ensino de F\'isica (in Portuguese

Prevalence of perceptions of inappropriate care among intensive care unit healthcare providers and reasons why disproportional care is continued : the APPROPRICUS study

C

Framework to Support the Process of Decision-Making on Life-Sustaining Treatments in the ICU: Results of a Delphi Study

Objectives: To develop a consensus framework that can guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in ICU patients, using evidence-based items, supported by caregivers, patients, and surrogate decision makers from multiple countries. Design: A three-round web-based international Delphi consensus study with a priori consensus definition was conducted with experts from 13 countries. Participants reviewed items of the decision-making process on a seven-point Likert scale or with open-ended questions. Questions concerned terminology, content, and timing of decision-making steps. The summarized results (including mean scores) and expert suggestions were presented in the subsequent round for review. Setting: Web-based surveys of international participants representing ICU physicians, nurses, former ICU patients, and surrogate decision makers. Patients: Not applicable. Interventions: Not applicable. Measurements and Main Results: In three rounds, respectively, 28, 28, and 27 (of 33 invited) physicians together with 12, 10, and seven (of 19 invited) nurses participated. Patients and surrogates were involved in round one and 12 of 27 responded. Caregivers were mostly working in university affiliated hospitals in Northern Europe. During the Delphi process, most items were modified in order to reach consensus. Seven items lacked consensus after three rounds. The final consensus framework comprises the content and timing of four elements; three elements focused on caregiver-surrogate communication (admission meeting, follow-up meeting, goals-of-care meeting); and one element (weekly time-out meeting) focused on assessing preferences, prognosis, and proportionality of ICU treatment among professionals. Conclusions: Physicians, nurses, patients, and surrogates generated a consensus-based framework to guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in the ICU. Early, frequent, and scheduled family meetings combined with a repeated multidisciplinary time-out meeting may support decisions in relation to patient preferences, prognosis, and proportionality

Ethical climate and intention to leave among critical care clinicians : an observational study in 68 intensive care units across Europe and the United States

PurposeApart from organizational issues, quality of inter-professional collaboration during ethical decision-making may affect the intention to leave one's job. To determine whether ethical climate is associated with the intention to leave after adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics.MethodsPerceptions of the ethical climate among clinicians working in 68 adult ICUs in 12 European countries and the US were measured using a self-assessment questionnaire, together with job characteristics and intent to leave as a sub-analysis of the Dispropricus study. The validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire included seven factors: not avoiding decision-making at end-of-life (EOL), mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team, open interdisciplinary reflection, ethical awareness, self-reflective physician leadership, active decision-making at end-of-life by physicians, and involvement of nurses in EOL. Hierarchical mixed effect models were used to assess associations between these factors, and the intent to leave in clinicians within ICUs, within the different countries.ResultsOf 3610 nurses and 1137 physicians providing ICU bedside care, 63.1% and 62.9% participated, respectively. Of 2992 participating clinicians, 782 (26.1%) had intent to leave, of which 27% nurses, 24% junior and 22.7% senior physicians. After adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics, mutual respect OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66- 0.90), open interdisciplinary reflection (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62-0.86]) and not avoiding EOL decisions (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77-0.98]) were all associated with a lower intent to leave.ConclusionThis is the first large multicenter study showing an independent association between clinicians' intent to leave and the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU. Interventions to reduce intent to leave may be most effective when they focus on improving mutual respect, interdisciplinary reflection and active decision-making at EOL

Ethical climate and intention to leave among critical care clinicians: an observational study in 68 intensive care units across Europe and the United States

Purpose: Apart from organizational issues, quality of inter-professional collaboration during ethical decision-making may affect the intention to leave one’s job. To determine whether ethical climate is associated with the intention to leave after adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics. Methods: Perceptions of the ethical climate among clinicians working in 68 adult ICUs in 12 European countries and the US were measured using a self-assessment questionnaire, together with job characteristics and intent to leave as a sub-analysis of the Dispropricus study. The validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire included seven factors: not avoiding decision-making at end-of-life (EOL), mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team, open interdisciplinary reflection, ethical awareness, self-reflective physician leadership, active decision-making at end-of-life by physicians, and involvement of nurses in EOL. Hierarchical mixed effect models were used to assess associations between these factors, and the intent to leave in clinicians within I

Outcome in patients perceived as receiving excessive care across different ethical climates: a prospective study in 68 intensive care units in Europe and the USA

Purpose: Whether the quality of the ethical climate in the intensive care unit (ICU) improves the identification of patients receiving excessive care and affects patient outcomes is unknown. Methods: In this prospective observational study, perceptions of excessive care (PECs) by clinicians working in 68 ICUs in Europe and the USA were collected daily during a 28-day period. The quality of the ethical climate in the ICUs was assessed via a validated questionnaire. We compared the combined endpoint (death, not at home or poor quality of life at 1 year) of patients with PECs and the time from PECs until written treatment-limitation decisions (TLDs) and death across the four climates defined via cluster analysis. Results: Of the 4747 eligible clinicians, 2992 (63%) evaluated the ethical climate in their ICU. Of the 321 and 623 patients not admitted for monitoring only in ICUs with a good (n = 12, 18%) and poor (n = 24, 35%) climate, 36 (11%) and 74 (12%), respectively were identified with PECs by at least two clinicians. Of the 35 and 71 identified patients with an available combined endpoint, 100% (95% CI 90.0–1.00) and 85.9% (75.4–92.0) (P = 0.02) attained that endpoint. The risk of death (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.20–2.92) or receiving a written TLD (HR 2.32, CI 1.11–4.85) in patients with PECs by at least two clinicians was higher in ICUs with a good climate than in those with a poor one. The differences between ICUs with an average climate, with (n = 12, 18%) or without (n = 20, 29%) nursing involvement at the end of life, and ICUs with a poor climate were less obvious but still in favour of the former. Conclusion: Enhancing the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU may improve both the identification of patients receiving excessive care and the decision-making process at the end of life

Prinicples and Practice of Limiting Life-Sustaining Therapies

Decisions regarding the extent of treatment and the application of life-sustaining therapies in intensive care medicine maybe unambiguous at times: the patient will either clearly benefit from such therapies or clearly not. However, for many critically ill or injured patients, the “cutoff” between foreseeable benefit and untoward suffering is not as crystal clear considering scare information and time constraints. Even if the benefits of life-sustaining therapies are undisputed at the time of their implementation, their side effects, such as pain, anxiety, and confusion, as well as unforeseen complications may change the balance of benefits and harm during treatment in an intensive care unit. Therefore, considerable communicational, ethical, and legal challenges may arise as to the potentially irrevocable limitation of life-sustaining therapies. Subsequently, clinicians need to familiarize themselves with the respective reasoning, prerequisites, and practical implementation.</p