Gavin M Joynt1, Jeffrey Lipman2, Christiane Hartog3, Bertrand Guidet4, Fathima Paruk5, Charles Feldman6, Niranjan Kissoon7, Charles L Sprung8. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong. Electronic address: gavinmjoynt@cuhk.edu.hk. 2. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia. 3. Center for Sepsis Control and Care, University of Jena, Jena, Germany. 4. Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France. 5. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 6. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 7. BC Children's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 8. Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When terminal illness exists, it is common clinical practice worldwide to withhold (WH) or withdraw (WD) life-sustaining treatments. Systematic documentation of professional opinion and perceived practice similarities and differences may allow recommendations to be developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Speakers from invited faculty of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Congress that took place in Durban (2013), with an interest in ethics, were approached to participate in an ethics round table. Key domains of health care professional end-of-life decision making were defined, explored by discussion, and then questions related to current practice and opinion developed and subsequently answered by round-table participants to establish the presence or absence of agreement. RESULTS: Agreement was established for the desirability for early goal-of-care discussions and discussions between health care professionals to establish health care provider consensus and confirmation of the grounds for WH/WD, before holding formal WH/WD discussions with patients/surrogates. Nurse and other health care professional involvement were common in most but not all countries/regions. Principles and practical triggers for initiating discussions on WH/WD, such as multiorgan failure, predicted short-term survival, and predicted poor neurologic outcome, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There was majority agreement for many but not all statements describing health care professional end-of-life decision making.
INTRODUCTION: When terminal illness exists, it is common clinical practice worldwide to withhold (WH) or withdraw (WD) life-sustaining treatments. Systematic documentation of professional opinion and perceived practice similarities and differences may allow recommendations to be developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Speakers from invited faculty of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Congress that took place in Durban (2013), with an interest in ethics, were approached to participate in an ethics round table. Key domains of health care professional end-of-life decision making were defined, explored by discussion, and then questions related to current practice and opinion developed and subsequently answered by round-table participants to establish the presence or absence of agreement. RESULTS: Agreement was established for the desirability for early goal-of-care discussions and discussions between health care professionals to establish health care provider consensus and confirmation of the grounds for WH/WD, before holding formal WH/WD discussions with patients/surrogates. Nurse and other health care professional involvement were common in most but not all countries/regions. Principles and practical triggers for initiating discussions on WH/WD, such as multiorgan failure, predicted short-term survival, and predicted poor neurologic outcome, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There was majority agreement for many but not all statements describing health care professional end-of-life decision making.
Authors: Joshua Tze Yin Kuek; Lisa Xin Ling Ngiam; Nur Haidah Ahmad Kamal; Jeng Long Chia; Natalie Pei Xin Chan; Ahmad Bin Hanifah Marican Abdurrahman; Chong Yao Ho; Lorraine Hui En Tan; Jun Leng Goh; Michelle Shi Qing Khoo; Yun Ting Ong; Min Chiam; Annelissa Mien Chew Chin; Stephen Mason; Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna Journal: Philos Ethics Humanit Med Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 2.464
Authors: Angela M Kotsopoulos; Nichon E Jansen; Piet Vos; Marloes Witjes; Meint Volbeda; Jelle L Epker; Hans P C Sonneveld; Koen S Simons; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Hans G van der Hoeven; Wilson F Abdo Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Su Chen; Joseph L Nates; Jacqueline M Kruser; Christiane Hartog; Andrej Michalsen; Nikolaos Efstathiou; Gavin M Joynt; Suzana Lobo; Alexander Avidan; Charles L Sprung Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ernest van Veen; Mathieu van der Jagt; Giuseppe Citerio; Nino Stocchetti; Diederik Gommers; Alex Burdorf; David K Menon; Andrew I R Maas; Erwin J O Kompanje; Hester F Lingsma Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 17.440