BACKGROUND: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life patients is a challenging ethical issue faced by physicians. Understanding physicians\' experiences and factors influencing their decisions can lead to improvement in end-of-life care.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences of Thai physicians when making decisions regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life situations. Additionally, the study aims to assess the consensus among physicians regarding the factors that influence these decisions and to explore the influence of families or surrogates on the decision-making process of physicians, utilizing case-based surveys.
METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted among physicians practicing in Chiang Mai University Hospital (June - October 2022).
RESULTS: Among 251 physicians (response rate 38.3%), most of the respondents (60.6%) reported that they experienced withholding or withdrawal treatment in end-of-life patients. Factors that influence their decision-making include patient\'s preferences (100%), prognosis (93.4%), patients\' quality of life (92.8%), treatment burden (89.5%), and families\' request (87.5%). For a chronic disease with comatose condition, the majority of the physicians (47%) chose to continue treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In contrast, only 2 physicians (0.8%) would do everything, in cases when families or surrogates insisted on stopping the treatment. This increased to 78.1% if the families insisted on continuing treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are common in Thailand. The key factors influencing their decision-making process included patient\'s preferences and medical conditions and families\' requests. Effective communication and early engagement in advanced care planning between physicians, patients, and families empower them to align treatment choices with personal values.

BACKGROUND: Advances in emergency and critical care have improved outcomes, but gaps in communication and decision-making persist, especially in the emergency department (ED), prompting the development of a checklist to aid in serious illness conversations (SIC) in China.
METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective interventional study on the quality improvement of SIC for life-sustaining treatment (LST). The study recruited patients consecutively for both its observational baseline and interventional stages until its conclusion. Eligible participants were adults over 18 years old admitted to the Emergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU) of a tertiary teaching hospital, possessing full decisional capacity or having a legal proxy. Exclusions were made for pregnant women, patients deceased upon arrival, those who refused participation, and individuals with incomplete data for analysis. First, a two-round Delphi process was organized to identify major elements and generate a standard process through a checklist. Subsequently, the efficacy of SIC in adult patients admitted to the EICU was compared using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) score before (baseline group) and after (intervention group) implementing the checklist.
RESULTS: The study participants presented with the most common comorbidities, such as diabetes, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, moderate-to-severe renal disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic pulmonary disease. The median Charlson Index did not differ between the baseline and intervention cohorts. The median length of hospital stay was 11.0 days, and 82.9% of patients survived until hospital discharge. The total DCS score was lower in the intervention group than in the baseline group. Three subscales, including the informed, values clarity, and support subscales, demonstrated significant differences between the intervention and baseline groups. Fewer intervention group patients agreed with and changed their minds about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) compared to the baseline group.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a SIC checklist in the EICU reduced the DCS score by increasing medical information disclosure, patient value awareness, and decision-making support.

UNASSIGNED: Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) decisions for critically injured trauma patients are complicated and multifactorial, with potential for patients\' insurance status to affect decision-making.
UNASSIGNED: To determine if patient insurance type (private insurance, Medicaid, and uninsured) is associated with time to WLST in critically injured adults cared for at US trauma centers.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective registry-based cohort study included reported data from level I and level II trauma centers in the US that participated in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) registry. Participants included adult trauma patients who were injured between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, and required an intensive care unit stay. Patients were excluded if they died on arrival or in the emergency department or had a preexisting do not resuscitate directive. Analyses were performed on December 12, 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Insurance type (private insurance, Medicaid, uninsured).
UNASSIGNED: An adjusted time-to-event analysis for association between insurance status and time to WLST was performed, with analyses accounting for clustering by hospital.
UNASSIGNED: This study included 307 731 patients, of whom 160 809 (52.3%) had private insurance, 88 233 (28.6%) had Medicaid, and 58 689 (19.1%) were uninsured. The mean (SD) age was 40.2 (14.1) years, 232 994 (75.7%) were male, 59 551 (19.4%) were African American or Black patients, and 201 012 (65.3%) were White patients. In total, 12 962 patients (4.2%) underwent WLST during their admission. Patients who are uninsured were significantly more likely to undergo earlier WLST compared with those with private insurance (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.62) and Medicaid (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.39-1.55). This finding was robust to sensitivity analysis excluding patients who died within 48 hours of presentation and after accounting for nonwithdrawal death as a competing risk.
UNASSIGNED: In this cohort study of US adult trauma patients who were critically injured, patients who were uninsured underwent earlier WLST compared with those with private or Medicaid insurance. Based on our findings, patient\'s ability to pay was may be associated with a shift in decision-making for WLST, suggesting the influence of socioeconomics on patient outcomes.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The Patient Right to Autonomy Act (PRAA), implemented in Taiwan in 2019, enables the creation of advance decisions (AD) through advance care planning (ACP). This legal framework allows for the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST) or artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in situations like irreversible coma, vegetative state, severe dementia, or unbearable pain. This study aims to investigate preferences for LST or ANH across various clinical conditions, variations in participant preferences, and factors influencing these preferences among urban residents.
METHODS: Employing a survey of legally structured AD documents and convenience sampling for data collection, individuals were enlisted from Taipei City Hospital, serving as the primary trial and demonstration facility for ACP in Taiwan since the commencement of the PRAA in its inaugural year. The study examined ADs and ACP consultation records, documenting gender, age, welfare entitlement, disease conditions, family caregiving experience, location of ACP consultation, participation of second-degree relatives, and the intention to participate in ACP.
RESULTS: Data from 2337 participants were extracted from electronic records. There was high consistency in the willingness to refuse LST and ANH, with significant differences noted between terminal diseases and extremely severe dementia. Additionally, ANH was widely accepted as a time-limited treatment, and there was a prevalent trend of authorizing a health care agent (HCA) to make decisions on behalf of participants. Gender differences were observed, with females more inclined to decline LST and ANH, while males tended towards accepting full or time-limited treatment. Age also played a role, with younger participants more open to treatment and authorizing HCA, and older participants more prone to refusal.
CONCLUSIONS: Diverse preferences in LST and ANH were shaped by the public\'s current understanding of different clinical states, gender, age, and cultural factors. Our study reveals nuanced end-of-life preferences, evolving ADs, and socio-demographic influences. Further research could explore evolving preferences over time and healthcare professionals\' perspectives on LST and ANH decisions for neurological patients..

UNASSIGNED: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) reduces mortality from out.of.hospital cardiac arrest. The willingness to perform CPR (W-CPR) is also critical. Uncertain effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on W-CPR were reported. Our objectives aim to examine W-CPR during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the influence of the bystander-victim relationship, bystander characteristics, and CPR background on the W-CPR of laypeople and healthcare providers (HCPs).
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between August 2020 and November 2020 among Thai laypeople and HCPs. A structured questionnaire was given to volunteers as an online survey. We recorded W-Conventional CPR (W-C-CPR), W-Compression.only CPR (W-CO-CPR), chest compression, automated external defibrillator (AED), mouth.to.mouth, face shield, and pocket mask ventilation on family members (FMs), acquaintances, and strangers during the study (pandemic) and in nonpandemic situation and analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: We included 419 laypeople and 716 HCPs. During the pandemic, laypeople expressed less willingness in all interventions (P < 0.05) except W-CO-CPR in FMs and AED in FMs and acquaintances. HCPs were less willing to any interventions (P < 0.05). Laypeople showed comparable W-C-CPR and W-CO-CPR between FMs and acquaintances but less among strangers (P < 0.05). HCPs\' W-CPR differed significantly depending on their relationship (P < 0.05), except W-CO-CPR between FMs and acquaintances. CPR self.efficacy, single marital status, CPR experience, and HCPs reported higher W-CO-CPR in FMs.
UNASSIGNED: Participants were less W-CPR during the COVID-19 pandemic on all recipients (laypeople: 2.8%-21.0%, HCPs: 7.6%-31.2%), except for laypeople with FMs. The recipient\'s relationship was more critical in W-C-CPR than in W-CO-CPR, especially in HCPs.

The experience and self-confidence of healthcare professionals play critical roles in reducing anxiety levels during emergencies. It is important to recognize the potential impact of anxiety on performance. To enhance preparedness and confidence in managing emergencies, healthcare professionals benefit from regular training and simulations. Additionally, repeated exposure to emergency scenarios can help modulate physiological responses. Managing anxiety effectively is key, as heightened sympathetic stimulation associated with anxiety can adversely affect performance. This study aimed to investigate nurses\' self-assessed ability to manage emergency guidelines and their self-confidence in performing tasks in critical care settings. A questionnaire was provided to 1097 nurses. We compared the self-confidence of experienced nurses (ENs) and newly licensed nurses (NLNs) in managing emergency department shifts or critical patients, and found that ENs are more confident in these scenarios. This phenomenon was also observed in subjects who had taken simulation courses, although they were still a low percentage. Most NLNs feel sufficiently ready to work in medium-intensity wards. Attending advanced training courses enhances nurses\' self-confidence and may improve patient safety management., improving patient recovery, and minimizing errors. Attending courses improves the perception of autonomy of nurses in different scenarios.

Clinical conversations surrounding the continuation or limitation of life-sustaining therapies (LLST) are both challenging and tragically necessary for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. Divergent cultural, philosophical and religious perspectives contribute to vast heterogeneity in clinical approaches to LLST-as reflected in regional differences and inter-clinician variability. Here we provide an ethical analysis of factors that inform LLST decisions among patients with DoC. We begin by introducing the clinical and ethical challenge and clarifying the distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining therapy. We then describe relevant factors that influence LLST decision-making including diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, perception of pain, defining a \'good\' outcome, and the role of clinicians. In concluding sections, we explore global variation in LLST practices as they pertain to patients with DoC and examine the impact of cultural and religious perspectives on approaches to LLST. Understanding and respecting the cultural and religious perspectives of patients and surrogates is essential to protecting patient autonomy and advancing goal-concordant care during critical moments of medical decision-making involving patients with DoC.

This study measured the impact of the Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment Act by analyzing medical cost data from the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort. After identifying the patients who died in 2018 and 2019, the case and control groups were set using the presence of codes for managing the implementation of life-sustaining treatment with propensity score matching. Regarding medical costs, the case group had higher medical costs for all periods before death. The subdivided items of medical costs with significant differences were as follows: consultation, admission, injection, laboratory tests, imaging and radiation therapy, nursing hospital bundled payment, and special equipment. This study is the first analysis carried out to measure the impact of the Decision on Life-Sustaining Treatment Act through a cost analysis and to refute the common expectation that patients who decided to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment would go through fewer unnecessary tests or treatments.

BACKGROUND: Sociodemographic disparities in physician decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment exist. Little is known about the content of hospital policies that guide physicians involved in these decisions.
OBJECTIVE: What is the prevalence of US hospitals with policies that address withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; how do these policies approach ethically controversial scenarios; and how do these policies address sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment?
METHODS: This national cross-sectional survey assessed the content of hospital policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. We distributed the survey electronically to American Society for Bioethics and Humanities members between July and August 2023 and descriptively analyzed responses.
RESULTS: Among 93 respondents from hospitals or hospital systems representing all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, 92% had policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals varied in their stated guidance, permitting life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn in cases of patient or surrogate request (82%), physiologic futility (81%), and potentially inappropriate treatment (64%). Of the 8% of hospitals with policies that addressed patient sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, these policies provided opposing recommendations to either exclude sociodemographic factors in decision-making or actively acknowledge and incorporate these factors in decision-making. Only 3% of hospitals had policies that recommended collecting and maintaining information about patients for whom life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn that could be used to identify disparities in decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: Although most surveyed US hospital policies addressed withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, these policies varied widely in criteria and processes. Surveyed policies also rarely addressed sociodemographic disparities in these decisions.