Shared decision-making in the intensive care unit requires more frequent and high-quality communication: A research critique
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Informing and actively involving patients and their families in decision-making is a goal of patient- and family-centred health care. [1] Cai X. Robinson J. Muehlschlegel S. White D.B. Holloway R.G. Sheth K.N. et al. Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in neuroscience intensive care units. Neurocritical Care. 2015; 23 (Epub 2015/05/21; PubMed PMID: 25990137; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4816524): 131-141https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-015-0149-2 Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar Shared decision-making is a collaborative process that enables healthcare decisions to be made between patients and/or families and clinicians, with consideration of patient values and preferences, while also using the best available scientific evidence to make recommendations. [2] Kon A.A. Davidson J.E. Morrison W. Danis M. White D.B. Shared decision making in ICUs: an American College of critical care medicine and American thoracic society policy statement. Crit Care Med. 2016; 44 (Epub 2015/10/29; PubMed PMID: 26509317; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4788386): 188-201https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000001396 Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar This collaborative process is recommended by critical care societies [3] Fried T.R. Communication about treatment options and shared decision making in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179: 684-685https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0034 Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar and healthcare organisations internationally. 4 ACSQHC. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Partnering with consumers standard (Action 2.5, 2.6, 2.7). Retrieved from: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/standards/nsqhs-standards/partnering-consumers-standard.2018. Google Scholar , 5 Flannery L. Ramjan L.M. Peters K. End-of-life decisions in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) – exploring the experiences of ICU nurses and doctors – a critical literature review. Aust Crit Care. 2016; 29: 97-103https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2015.07.004 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar , 6 WHO. World Health OrganistionPatient safety. https://www.who.int/patientsafety/en/Date: 2018 Google Scholar Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are often incapacitated and unable to communicate their treatment preferences. In these instances, the patients' families and friends assume the role of surrogate decision-makers (surrogates). Often, these surrogates find themselves in family meetings with clinicians where they are faced with challenging decisions made even more complex by the uncertainty of patient prognoses. [1] Cai X. Robinson J. Muehlschlegel S. White D.B. Holloway R.G. Sheth K.N. et al. Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in neuroscience intensive care units. Neurocritical Care. 2015; 23 (Epub 2015/05/21; PubMed PMID: 25990137; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4816524): 131-141https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-015-0149-2 Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar Scheunemann et al. [7] Scheunemann L.P. Ernecoff N.C. Buddadhumaruk P. Carson S.S. Hough C.L. Curtis J.R. et al. Clinician-family communication about patients' values and preferences in intensive care units. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179 (PubMed PMID: 136383893. Language: English. Entry Date: In Process. Revision Date: 20190612. Publication Type: journal article. Journal Subset: Biomedical): 676-684https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0027 Crossref PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar recently explored this important area in a study of 249 family conferences, analysing how patient values and preferences are elicited during family meetings and how these preferences are applied to shared decisions made between surrogates and clinicians. A critique of this article is presented in the following.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».