Education, ethics, and end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of education and clinical experience on residents' attitudes toward withdrawal of life support. DESIGN: Self-administered survey. SETTING: Four Canadian teaching hospitals. SUBJECTS: Residents rotating through four intensive care units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The survey examined ethics education and experience regarding end-of-life care, importance of factors influencing withdrawal of life support, confidence in decisions, and recommendations for enhancing end-of-life education. The response rate was 83.9% (52 of 62). A minority of residents reported an appropriate amount of formal teaching on ethical principles (17.3%), patient-centered education (28.8%), and informal discussion (28.8%) before their intensive care unit rotation. During their rotation, most residents cared for patients in whom withdrawal of life support was considered. Although they usually attended family meetings, residents were never (34.6%) or rarely (42.3%) the primary discussant. Before the intensive care unit rotation, confidence in withdrawal decisions was related to male sex (p =.001) and previous patient-centered ethics education (p =.02). At the end of the intensive care unit rotation, only resident involvement in family meetings (p =.02) and being the primary discussant at such meetings (p =.01) were associated with confidence. After we adjusted for pre-rotation confidence in withdrawal of life support decision-making, the only predictor of post-rotation confidence was family meeting involvement (p <.001). Residents recommended more patient-centered discussion, observation of attending physicians discussing end-of-life issues, and opportunity to lead family meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Experiential, case-based, patient-centered curricula are associated with resident confidence in withdrawal of life support decisions in the intensive care unit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".