Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 714
Filtrar
4.
Theor Med Bioeth ; 45(3): 167-181, 2024 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38806871

RESUMEN

This article examines some of the ethical challenges of prioritizing intensive care resources during the Covid-19 pandemic by comparing the Italian and United States contexts. After presenting an overview to the clinical, ethical, and public debates in Italy, the article will discuss the development of triage allocation protocols in United States hospitals. Resource allocation criteria underwent increased scrutiny and critique in both countries, which resulted in modified professional and expert guidance regarding healthcare ethics during times of emergency and resource scarcity.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Cuidados Críticos , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud , SARS-CoV-2 , Triaje , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Italia/epidemiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Triaje/ética , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/ética , Asignación de Recursos/ética , Pandemias/ética , Prioridades en Salud/ética , Recursos en Salud/ética
5.
West J Nurs Res ; 46(6): 404-415, 2024 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38676378

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients often experience distressful and impactful symptoms and conditions that include pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disturbances (PADIS). The presence of PADIS can affect recovery and long-term patient outcomes. An integral part of critical care nursing is PADIS prevention, assessment, and management. Ethical sensitivity of everyday nursing practice related to PADIS is an imperative part of implementing evidence-based care for patients. OBJECTIVE: The first 2 aims of this study were to determine the measured level of ethical awareness as an attribute of ethical sensitivity among the critical care nurse participants and to explore the ethical sensitivity of critical care nurses related to the implementation of PADIS care. The third aim was to examine how the measured level of ethical awareness and ethical sensitivity exploration results converge, diverge, and/or relate to each other to produce a more complete understanding of PADIS ethical sensitivity by critical care nurses. METHODS: This was a convergent parallel mixed methods study (QUAL + quant). Ethical sensitivity was explored by conducting an ethnography of critical care nurses. The participants were 19 critical care nurses who were observed during patient care, interviewed individually, participated in a focus group (QUAL), and were administered the Ethical Awareness Scale (quant). FINDINGS: Despite high levels of individual ethical awareness among nurses, themes of ambiguous beneficence, heedless autonomy, and moral distress were found to be related to PADIS care. CONCLUSIONS: More effort is needed to establish moral community, ethical leadership, and individual ethical guidance for nurses to establish patient-centered decision-making and PADIS care.


Asunto(s)
Enfermería de Cuidados Críticos , Ética en Enfermería , Humanos , Enfermería de Cuidados Críticos/ética , Enfermería de Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Femenino , Masculino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Trastornos del Sueño-Vigilia , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Cuidados Críticos/psicología , Cuidados Críticos/métodos
6.
Panminerva Med ; 66(2): 146-154, 2024 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38536008

RESUMEN

Increasing numbers of older patients are being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as the world's population ages. The biological process of ageing, senescence, results in altered ability to maintain normal homeostasis and organ function, including of the cardiovascular, immune, and neuromuscular systems. This contributes towards increased frailty in older patients, associated with functional limitations and increased vulnerability. Although widely defined using chronological age, the concept of "old age" is thus multifactorial, including biological, but also psychological and sociocultural aspects, which should all be taken into account when considering what is appropriate in terms of ICU admission and management. As for all patients, but perhaps particularly in this subgroup, decisions regarding ICU admission and treatment and the withdrawing and withholding of life support must be individualized.


Asunto(s)
Cuidados Críticos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/ética , Anciano , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Envejecimiento/psicología , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Privación de Tratamiento/ética , Fragilidad/terapia , Fragilidad/psicología , Factores de Edad , Anciano Frágil , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas/ética , Evaluación Geriátrica
7.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 119(4): 291-295, 2024 May.
Artículo en Alemán | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38345649

RESUMEN

The rise in intensive care treatment procedures is accompanied by an increase in the complexity of decisions regarding the selection, administration and duration of treatment measures. Whether a treatment goal is desirable in an individual case and the treatment plan required to achieve it is acceptable for the patient depends on the patient's preferences, values and life plans. There is often uncertainty as to whether a patient-centered treatment goal can be achieved. The use of a time-limited treatment trial (TLT) as a binding agreement between the intensive care unit (ICU) team and the patient or their legal representative on a treatment concept over a defined period of time in the ICU can be helpful to reduce uncertainties and to ensure the continuation of intensive care measures in the patients' best interest.


Asunto(s)
Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Humanos , Alemania , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/ética , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Prioridad del Paciente , Inutilidad Médica/ética , Inutilidad Médica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Colaboración Intersectorial
8.
Chest ; 161(2): 504-513, 2022 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34506791

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration. RESULTS: Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy. INTERPRETATION: Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Defensa Civil/normas , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud , Cuidados Críticos , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/normas , Nivel de Atención/organización & administración , Triaje , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/ética , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/métodos , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/organización & administración , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Cuidados Críticos/organización & administración , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Capacidad de Reacción/normas , Triaje/ética , Triaje/organización & administración , Triaje/normas , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Poblaciones Vulnerables
10.
S Afr Med J ; 111(5): 426-431, 2021 03 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34852883

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical operations have been drastically reduced in South Africa (SA). Guidelines on surgical prioritisation during COVID-19 have been published, but are specific to high-income countries. There is a pressing need for context-specific guidelines and a validated tool for prioritising surgical cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the South African National Surgical Obstetric Anaesthesia Plan Task Team was asked by the National Department of Health to establish a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation. OBJECTIVES: To develop a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation, including a set of recommendations and a risk calculatorfor operative care. METHODS: The surgical prioritisation framework was developed in three stages: (i) a literature review of international, national and local recommendations on COVID-19 and surgical care was conducted; (ii) a set of recommendations was drawn up based on the available literature and through consensus of the COVID-19 Task Team; and (iii) a COVID-19 surgical risk calculator was developed and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 30 documents were identified from which recommendations around prioritisation of surgical care were used to draw up six recommendations for preoperative COVID-19 screening and testing as well as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Ninety-nine perioperative practitioners from eight SA provinces evaluated the COVID-19 surgical risk calculator, which had high acceptability and a high level of concordance (81%) with current clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This national framework on COVID-19 surgical prioritisation can help hospital teams make ethical, equitable and personalised decisions whether to proceed with or delay surgical operations during this unprecedented epidemic.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/normas , Servicio de Cirugía en Hospital/organización & administración , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/estadística & datos numéricos , Triaje/normas , COVID-19/epidemiología , Consenso , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Sudáfrica , Servicio de Cirugía en Hospital/normas
12.
STAR Protoc ; 2(4): 100943, 2021 12 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34786562

RESUMEN

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Nivel de Atención/ética , Triaje/normas , COVID-19/virología , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/ética , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Triaje/ética , Triaje/métodos
15.
Chest ; 160(3): 1140-1144, 2021 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34087187

RESUMEN

We describe a request for CPR without chest compressions from a patient's daughter. Requests for partial codes raise numerous clinical concerns, including lack of evidence-based effectiveness, risk of medical error, and difficulty in communication. These in turn lead to ethical concerns, including a misapplication of respect for patient autonomy, violating the foundational principle of "first do no harm," and inconsistency with the tenets of shared decision-making. Many requests for partial codes are also based on a conflation of cardiopulmonary arrest and pre-arrest emergencies. We argue physicians have no ethical obligation to honor a request for a partial code and that doing so does not violate respect for patient autonomy. Requests for partial codes should be seen as a request for information about CPR and an invitation to conversation. We also report here the move our health system made to only offer evidence-based code status options and reject those with negligible likelihood for therapeutic benefit. This work included limiting options for code status to "Full Code" or "Do Not Attempt Resuscitation," creating an order set for non-arrest emergencies, and sample language to guide physicians in responding to requests for partial codes. To assist other hospitals or health systems considering this move, we provide the content of the order set for non-arrest emergencies and the sample language guide.


Asunto(s)
Reanimación Cardiopulmonar , Cuidados Críticos , Errores Médicos/prevención & control , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar/ética , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar/métodos , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar/psicología , Códigos de Ética , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Cuidados Críticos/psicología , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Toma de Decisiones Conjunta , Humanos , Órdenes de Resucitación
16.
Br Med Bull ; 138(1): 5-15, 2021 06 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34057458

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has placed intensive care units (ICU) triage at the center of bioethical discussions. National and international triage guidelines emerged from professional and governmental bodies and have led to controversial discussions about which criteria-e.g. medical prognosis, age, life-expectancy or quality of life-are ethically acceptable. The paper presents the main points of agreement and disagreement in triage protocols and reviews the ethical debate surrounding them. SOURCES OF DATA: Published articles, news articles, book chapters, ICU triage guidelines set out by professional societies and health authorities. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Points of agreement in the guidelines that are widely supported by ethical arguments are (i) to avoid using a first come, first served policy or quality-adjusted life-years and (ii) to rely on medical prognosis, maximizing lives saved, justice as fairness and non-discrimination. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Points of disagreement in existing guidelines and the ethics literature more broadly regard the use of exclusion criteria, the role of life expectancy, the prioritization of healthcare workers and the reassessment of triage decisions. GROWING POINTS: Improve outcome predictions, possibly aided by Artificial intelligence (AI); develop participatory approaches to drafting, assessing and revising triaging protocols; learn from experiences with implementation of guidelines with a view to continuously improve decision-making. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Examine the universality vs. context-dependence of triaging principles and criteria; empirically test the appropriateness of triaging guidelines, including impact on vulnerable groups and risk of discrimination; study the potential and challenges of AI for outcome and preference prediction and decision-support.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Triaje/ética , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/transmisión , Protocolos Clínicos , Humanos
18.
BMC Med Ethics ; 22(1): 43, 2021 04 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33849500

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prognostic uncertainty is a challenge for physicians in the neuro intensive care field. Questions about whether continued life-sustaining treatment is in a patient's best interests arise in different phases after a severe traumatic brain injury. In-depth information about how physicians deal with ethical issues in different contexts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to seek insight into clinicians' strategies concerning unresolved prognostic uncertainty and their ethical reasoning on the issue of limitation of life-sustaining treatment in patients with minimal or no signs of neurological improvement after severe traumatic brain injury in the later trauma hospital phase. METHODS: Interviews with 18 physicians working in a neurointensive care unit in a large Norwegian trauma hospital, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis focused on physicians' strategies related to treatment-limiting decision-making. RESULTS: A divide between proactive and wait-and-see strategies emerged. Notwithstanding the hospital's strong team culture, inter-physician variability with regard to ethical reasoning and preferred strategies was exposed. All the physicians emphasized the importance of team-family interactions. Nevertheless, their strategies differed: (1) The proactive physicians were open to consider limitations of life-sustaining treatment when the prognosis was grim. They initiated ethical discussions, took leadership in clarification and deliberation processes regarding goals and options, saw themselves as guides for the families and believed in the necessity to prepare families for both best-case and worst-case scenarios. (2) The "wait-and-see" physicians preferred open-ended treatment (no limitations). Neurologically injured patients need time to uncover their true recovery potential, they argued. They often avoided talking to the family about dying or other worst-case scenarios during this phase. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the individual physician in charge, ethical issues may rest unresolved or not addressed in the later trauma hospital phase. Nevertheless, team collaboration serves to mitigate inter-physician variability. There are problems and pitfalls to be aware of related to both proactive and wait-and-see approaches. The timing of best-interest discussions and treatment-limiting decisions remain challenging after severe traumatic brain injury. Routines for timely and open discussions with families about the range of ethically reasonable options need to be strengthened.


Asunto(s)
Lesiones Traumáticas del Encéfalo/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Toma de Decisiones , Inutilidad Médica/ética , Médicos/psicología , Humanos , Noruega , Investigación Cualitativa
19.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 29(11): 1645-1653, 2021 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33811253

RESUMEN

Healthcare systems are increasingly considering widespread implementation of rapid genomic testing of critically ill children, but evidence on the value of the benefits generated is lacking. This information is key for an optimal implementation into healthcare systems. A discrete choice experiment survey was designed to elicit preferences and values for rapid genomic testing in critically ill children. The survey was administered to members of the Australian public and families with lived experience of rapid genomic testing. A Bayesian D-efficient explicit partial profiles design was used, and data were analysed using a panel error component mixed logit model. Preference heterogeneity was explored using a latent class model and fractional logistic regressions. The public (n = 522) and families with lived experiences (n = 25) demonstrated strong preferences for higher diagnostic yield and clinical utility, faster result turnaround times, and lower cost. Society on average would be willing to pay an additional AU$9510 (US$6657) for rapid (2 weeks results turnaround time) and AU$11,000 (US$7700) for ultra-rapid genomic testing (2 days turnaround time) relative to standard diagnostic care. Corresponding estimates among those with lived experiences were AU$10,225 (US$7158) and AU$11,500 (US$8050), respectively. Our work provides further evidence that rapid genomic testing for critically ill children with rare conditions generates substantial utility. The findings can be used to inform cost-benefit analyses as part of broader healthcare system implementation.


Asunto(s)
Actitud , Conducta de Elección , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Adulto , Niño , Cuidados Críticos/economía , Familia/psicología , Pruebas Genéticas/economía , Humanos , Lactante , Opinión Pública
20.
New Bioeth ; 27(2): 127-132, 2021 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33913400

RESUMEN

The current coronavirus pandemic presents the greatest healthcare crisis in living memory. Hospitals across the world have faced unprecedented pressure. In the face of this tidal wave of demand for limited healthcare resources, how are clinicians to identify patients most likely to benefit? Should age or frailty be discriminators? This paper seeks to analyse the current evidence-base, seeking a nuanced approach to pandemic decision-making, such as admission to critical care.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Fragilidad/epidemiología , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/ética , Triaje/ética , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Comorbilidad , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA