1,767 research outputs found
Documentation of ethically relevant information in out-of-hospital resuscitation is rare: a Danish nationwide observational study of 16,495 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests
Abstract Background Decision-making in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest should ideally include clinical and ethical factors. Little is known about the extent of ethical considerations and their influence on prehospital resuscitation. We aimed to determine the transparency in medical records regarding decision-making in prehospital resuscitation with a specific focus on ethically relevant information and consideration in resuscitation providersâ documentation. Methods This was a Danish nationwide retrospective observational study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from 2016 through 2018. After an initial screening using broadly defined inclusion criteria, two experienced philosophers performed a qualitative content analysis of the included medical records according to a preliminary codebook. We identified ethically relevant content in free-text fields and categorised the information according to Beauchamp and Childressâ four basic bioethical principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Results Of 16,495 medical records, we identified 759 (4.6%) with potentially relevant information; 710 records (4.3%) contained ethically relevant information, whereas 49 did not. In general, the documentation was vague and unclear. We identified four kinds of ethically relevant information: patientsâ wishes and perspectives on life; relativesâ wishes and perspectives on patientsâ life; healthcare professionalsâ opinions and perspectives on resuscitation; and do-not-resuscitate orders. We identified some âbest practiceâ examples that included all perspectives of decision-making. Conclusions There is sparse and unclear evidence on ethically relevant information in the medical records documenting resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. However, the âbest practiceâ examples show that providing sufficient documentation of decision-making is, in fact, feasible. To ensure transparency surrounding prehospital decisions in cardiac arrests, we believe that it is necessary to ensure more systematic documentation of decision-making in prehospital resuscitation
Documentation of ethically relevant information in out-of-hospital resuscitation is rare: a Danish nationwide observational study of 16,495 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests
Abstract Background Decision-making in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest should ideally include clinical and ethical factors. Little is known about the extent of ethical considerations and their influence on prehospital resuscitation. We aimed to determine the transparency in medical records regarding decision-making in prehospital resuscitation with a specific focus on ethically relevant information and consideration in resuscitation providersâ documentation. Methods This was a Danish nationwide retrospective observational study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from 2016 through 2018. After an initial screening using broadly defined inclusion criteria, two experienced philosophers performed a qualitative content analysis of the included medical records according to a preliminary codebook. We identified ethically relevant content in free-text fields and categorised the information according to Beauchamp and Childressâ four basic bioethical principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Results Of 16,495 medical records, we identified 759 (4.6%) with potentially relevant information; 710 records (4.3%) contained ethically relevant information, whereas 49 did not. In general, the documentation was vague and unclear. We identified four kinds of ethically relevant information: patientsâ wishes and perspectives on life; relativesâ wishes and perspectives on patientsâ life; healthcare professionalsâ opinions and perspectives on resuscitation; and do-not-resuscitate orders. We identified some âbest practiceâ examples that included all perspectives of decision-making. Conclusions There is sparse and unclear evidence on ethically relevant information in the medical records documenting resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. However, the âbest practiceâ examples show that providing sufficient documentation of decision-making is, in fact, feasible. To ensure transparency surrounding prehospital decisions in cardiac arrests, we believe that it is necessary to ensure more systematic documentation of decision-making in prehospital resuscitation
The practice of glycaemic control in intensive care units: A multicentre survey of nursing and medical professionals.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the views of nurses and physicians working in intensive care units (ICU) about the aims of glycaemic control and use of their protocols. BACKGROUND: Evidence about the optimal aims and methods for glycaemic control in ICU is controversial, and current local protocols guiding practice differ between ICUs, both nationally and internationally. The views of professionals on glycaemic control can influence their practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicentre, survey-based study. METHODS: An online short survey was sent to all physicians and nurses of seven ICUs, including questions on effective glycaemic control, treatment of hypoglycaemia and deviations from protocols' instructions. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Over half of the 40 respondents opined that a patient spending <75% admission time within the target glycaemic levels constituted poor glycaemic control. Professionals with more than 5Â years of experience were more likely to rate a patient spending 50%-74% admission time within target glycaemic levels as poor than less experienced colleagues. Physicians were more likely to rate a patient spending <50% admission time within target as poor than nurses. There was general agreement on how professionals would rate most deviations from their protocols. Nurses were more likely to rate insulin infusions restarted late and incorrect dosage of rescue glucose as major deviations than physicians. Most professionals agreed on when they would treat hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: When surveyed on various aspects of glycaemic control, ICU nurses and physicians often agreed, although there were certain areas of disagreement, in which their profession and level of experience seemed to play a role. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Differing views on glycaemic control amongst professionals may affect their practice and, thus, could lead to health inequalities. Clinical leads and the multidisciplinary ICU team should assess and, if necessary, address these differing opinions.Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) Charity and the NUH Department of Research and Innovation
University of Nottingham School of Health Sciences director of research small grant
Recovery after intensive care dataset
This excel dataset guided part of the interview discussion in a qualitative study about recovery after discharge from ICU. The study explored patients views about their recovery at six and twelve months and factors that facilitated recovery, and determined additional services that patients felt were missing during their recovery
Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems?
Objective: The reasons that doctors may refuse or be reluctant to treat have not been widely explored in the medical literature. To understand the ethical implications of reluctance to treat there is a need to recognise the constraints of doctors working in complex systems and to consider how these constraints may influence reluctance. The aim of this paper is to illustrate these constraints using the case of compensable injury in the Australian context. Design: Between September and December 2012, a qualitative investigation involving face-to-face semistructured interviews examined the knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) facilitating return to work in people with compensable injuries. Setting: Compensable injury management in general practice in Melbourne, Australia. Participants: 25 GPs who were treating, or had treated a patient with compensable injury. Results: The practice of clinicians refusing treatment was described by all participants. While most GPs reported refusal to treat among their colleagues in primary and specialist care, many participants also described their own reluctance to treat people with compensable injuries. Reasons offered included time and financial burdens, in addition to the clinical complexities involved in compensable injury management. Conclusions: In the case of compensable injury management, reluctance and refusal to treat is likely to have a domino effect by increasing the time and financial burden of clinically complex patients on the remaining clinicians. This may present a significant challenge to an effective, sustainable compensation system. Urgent research is needed to understand the extent and implications of reluctance and refusal to treat and to identify strategies to engage clinicians in treating people with compensable injuries
XPO1 expression worsens the prognosis of unfavorable DLBCL that can be effectively targeted by selinexor in the absence of mutant p53
Additional file 1. Table S1: Clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of DLBCL patients with high or low XPO1 expression. Table S2: Significantly differentially expressed genes between XPO1high and XPO1low DLBCL patients with concurrent TP53 mutation and high MYC expression. Figure S1: Biomarker study for XPO1 and selinexor. (AâB) XPO1high expression showed significant adverse prognostic impact in the ABC subtype but not the GCB subtype of DLBCL. (C) XPO1high expression showed a trend of unfavorable prognostic effect on PFS in MYC-rearranged (MYC-R+) DLBCL. (D) XPO1high expression was associated with significantly poorer survival in DLBCL patients with wild type (Wt) TP53. (E) ABC-DLBCL and GCB-DLBCL cells showed similar sensitivity to the cytotoxicity of selinexor. (F) TP53 mutation (Mut-TP53) significantly reduced the anti-lymphoma efficacy of selinexor in HGBCL-DH cells. IC50 values were calculated by GraphPad Prism 8 based on the cell viability data after 72-hour treatment
- âŚ