| 1. |
- Bulow, Hans-Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Are religion and religiosity important to end-of-life decisions and patient autonomy in the ICU? : The Ethicatt study
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 38:7, s. 1126-1133
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study explored differences in end-of-life (EOL) decisions and respect for patient autonomy of religious members versus those only affiliated to that particular religion (affiliated is a member without strong religious feelings).In 2005 structured questionnaires regarding EOL decisions were distributed in six European countries to ICUs in 142 hospital ICUs. This sub-study of the original data analyzed answers from Protestants, Catholics and Jews.A total of 304 physicians, 386 nurses, 248 patients and 330 family members were included in the study. Professionals wanted less treatment (ICU admission, CPR, ventilator treatment) than patients and family members. Religious respondents wanted more treatment and were more in favor of life prolongation, and they were less likely to want active euthanasia than those affiliated. Southern nurses and doctors favored euthanasia more than their Northern colleagues. Three quarters of doctors and nurses would respect a competent patient's refusal of a potentially life-saving treatment. No differences were found between religious and affiliated professionals regarding patient's autonomy. Inter-religious differences were detected, with Protestants most likely to follow competent patients' wishes and the Jewish respondents least likely to do so, and Jewish professionals more frequently accepting patients' wishes for futile treatment. However, these findings on autonomy were due to regional differences, not religious ones.Health-care professionals, families and patients who are religious will frequently want more extensive treatment than affiliated individuals. Views on active euthanasia are influenced by both religion and region, whereas views on patient autonomy are apparently more influenced by region.
|
|
| 2. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : BioMed Central. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators.Methods: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool.Results. The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N=24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N=7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N=49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N=41, 82%), benchmarking (N=42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N=41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N=48, 98%).Conclusions: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sprung, Charles L., et al.
(författare)
-
Attitudes of European physicians, nurses, patients, and families regarding end-of-life decisions : the ETHICATT study
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - Berlin : Springer. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 33:1, s. 104-110
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attitudes of Europeans regarding end-of-life decisions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Responses to a questionnaire by physicians and nurses working in ICUs, patients who survived ICU, and families of ICU patients in six European countries were compared for attitudes regarding quality and value of life, ICU treatments, active euthanasia, and place of treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Questionnaires were distributed to 4,389 individuals and completed by 1,899 (43%). Physicians (88%) and nurses (87%) found quality of life more important and value of life less important in their decisions for themselves than patients (51%) and families (63%). If diagnosed with a terminal illness, health professionals wanted fewer ICU admissions, uses of CPR, and ventilators (21%, 8%, 10%, respectively) than patients and families (58%, 49%, 44%, respectively). More physicians (79%) and nurses (61%) than patients (58%) and families (48%) preferred being home or in a hospice if they had a terminal illness with only a short time to live. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life was more important for physicians and nurses than patients and families. More medical professionals want fewer ICU treatments and prefer being home or in a hospice for a terminal illness than patients and families.
|
|
