Search

Bei schwer verletzten oder erheblich vorerkrankten Patienten im OP muss das Behandlungsteam gelegentlich schwerwiegende und folgenreiche Entscheidungen im Hinblick auf Therapie, Therapieumfang und Therapieziel treffen. Welche ethischen Grundsätze und Prinzipien dabei zu beachten sind, erfahren Sie im CNE Schwerpunkt.

ZusammenfassungUngeachtet der sozialgesetzlichen Vorgaben existieren im deutschen Gesundheitssystem in der Patientenversorgung nebeneinander Unter‑, Fehl- und Überversorgung. Überversorgung bezeichnet diagnostische und therapeutische Maßnahmen, die nicht angemessen sind, da sie die Lebensdauer oder Lebensqualität der Patienten nicht verbessern, mehr Schaden als Nutzen verursachen und/oder von den Patienten nicht gewollt werden. Daraus können hohe Belastungen für die Patienten, deren Familien, die Behandlungsteams und die Gesellschaft resultieren. Dieses Positionspapier erläutert Ursachen von Überversorgung in der Intensivmedizin und gibt differenzierte Empfehlungen zu ihrer Erkennung und Vermeidung. Zur Erkennung und Vermeidung von Überversorgung in der Intensivmedizin erfordert es Maßnahmen auf der Mikro‑, Meso- und Makroebene, insbesondere die folgenden: 1) regelmäßige Evaluierung des Therapieziels im Behandlungsteam unter Berücksichtigung des Patientenwillens und unter Begleitung von Patienten und Angehörigen; 2) Förderung einer patientenzentrierten Unternehmenskultur im Krankenhaus mit Vorrang einer qualitativ hochwertigen Patientenversorgung; 3) Minimierung von Fehlanreizen im Krankenhausfinanzierungssystem gestützt auf die notwendige Reformierung des fallpauschalbasierten Vergütungssystems; 4) Stärkung der interdisziplinären/interprofessionellen Zusammenarbeit in Aus‑, Fort- und Weiterbildung; 5) Initiierung und Begleitung eines gesellschaftlichen Diskurses zur Überversorgung.

In view of the globally evolving coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, German hospitals rapidly expanded their intensive care capacities. However, it is possible that even with an optimal use of the increased resources, these will not suffice for all patients in need. Therefore, recommendations for the allocation of intensive care resources in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic have been developed by a multidisciplinary group of authors with the support of eight scientific medical societies. The recommendations for procedures and criteria for prioritisations in case of resource scarcity are based on scientific evidence, ethicolegal considerations and practical experience. Medical decisions must always be based on the need and the treatment preferences of the individual patient. In addition to this patient-centred approach, prioritisations in case of resource scarcity require a supraindividual perspective. In such situations, prioritisations should be based on the criterion of clinical prospect of success in order to minimize the number of preventable deaths due to resource scarcity and to avoid discrimination based on age, disabilities or social factors. The assessment of the clinical prospect of success should take into account the severity of the current illness, severe comorbidities and the patient’s general health status prior to the current illness.

Angesichts der beginnenden COVID-19-Pandemie haben die deutschen Krankenhauser ihre intensivmedizinischen Kapazitaten erhoht. Trotz optimaler Nutzung erscheint es moglich, dass die intensivmedizinischen Ressourcen nicht mehr fur alle Patienten ausreichen, die ihrer bedurfen. Vor diesem Hintergrund wurden von einer multidisziplinaren Autorengruppe und mit Unterstutzung von acht medizinisch-wissenschaftlichen Fachgesellschaften Empfehlungen zur Verteilung intensivmedizinischer Ressourcen im Kontext der COVID-19-Pandemie erarbeitet. Die Empfehlungen zu Verfahren und Kriterien fur Priorisierungsentscheidungen bei Ressourcenknappheit wurden auf Grundlage der verfugbaren wissenschaftlichen Evidenz, ethischer und rechtlicher Uberlegungen sowie praktischer Erfahrungen erstellt. Medizinische Entscheidungen mussen sich immer am Bedarf und den Behandlungspraferenzen des einzelnen Patienten orientieren. Erganzend zu dieser patientenzentrierten Betrachtung kommt mit der Priorisierung bei absoluter Mittelknappheit eine uberindividuelle Perspektive hinzu. In dieser Situation sollte die Priorisierung anhand des Kriteriums der Erfolgsaussicht einer Behandlung erfolgen, um die Anzahl der vermeidbaren Todesfalle zu minimieren und eine Diskriminierung von Patienten aufgrund des Alters, von Behinderungen oder des sozialen Status zu vermeiden. Die Einschatzung der klinischen Erfolgsaussicht berucksichtigt den Schweregrad der aktuellen Erkrankung, das Vorliegen schwerer Komorbiditaten und den allgemeinen pramorbiden Gesundheitsstatus des Patienten.

The treatment situation in intensive care is characterised by a specific asymmetry in the relationship between patients and the team: Patients are particularly dependent on their environment and often show impaired consciousness and capacity to consent. This facilitates the use of coercion or enables and/or provokes it. The aim of this recommendation is to show ways to recognise patients with their wishes and needs and to integrate them into treatment concepts in the intensive care unit in order to reduce and avoid coercion whenever possible. The recommendation shows the variety of possible forms of coercion and discusses the moral standards to be considered in the ethical weighing process as well as legal conditions for justifying its use. It becomes obvious that treatment measures which may involve the use of coercion always require a careful and self-critical review of the measures in relation to the indication and the therapeutic goal. The recommendation's intention therefore is not to disapprove the use of coercion by interprofessional teams. Instead, it aims to contribute to a sensitive perception of coercion and to a critical and caring approach to formal and especially informal (indirect) coercion.Die Behandlungssituation in der Intensivmedizin ist durch eine starke Asymmetrie in der Begegnung gekennzeichnet: Patient:innen sind in besonderer Weise auf ihr Umfeld angewiesen, weisen häufig Beeinträchtigungen des Bewusstseins und der Willensbildung auf. Dies erleichtert die Anwendung von Zwang bzw. ermöglicht diesen und/oder ruft ihn hervor. Ziel dieser Handlungsempfehlung ist es, Wege aufzuzeigen, um Patient:innen mit ihren Wünschen und Bedürfnissen wahrzunehmen und sie in Behandlungskonzepte auf der Intensivstation einzubinden, um Zwang zu reduzieren und wann immer möglich zu vermeiden. Der Beitrag zeigt die Vielfalt möglicher Formen von Zwang auf und diskutiert die im ethischen Abwägungsprozess zu berücksichtigenden moralischen Maßstäben sowie rechtliche Bedingungen zur Rechtfertigung seiner Anwendung. Es wird deutlich, dass Behandlungsmaßnahmen, die die Anwendung von Zwang beinhalten können, immer einer sorgfältigen und auch selbstkritischen Überprüfung der Maßnahmen im Verhältnis zur Indikation und zum Therapieziel bedürfen. Die Handlungsempfehlung möchte daher nicht prinzipiell die Anwendung von Zwang durch die interprofessionellen Teams missbilligen, sondern sie soll vielmehr zu einer sensiblen Wahrnehmung von Zwang und zu einem kritischen und fürsorglichen Umgang mit formellem und insbesondere informellem (indirektem) Zwang beitragen.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: To develop a consensus framework that can guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in ICU patients, using evidence-based items, supported by caregivers, patients, and surrogate decision makers from multiple countries. Design: A three-round web-based international Delphi consensus study with a priori consensus definition was conducted with experts from 13 countries. Participants reviewed items of the decision-making process on a seven-point Likert scale or with open-ended questions. Questions concerned terminology, content, and timing of decision-making steps. The summarized results (including mean scores) and expert suggestions were presented in the subsequent round for review. Setting: Web-based surveys of international participants representing ICU physicians, nurses, former ICU patients, and surrogate decision makers. Patients: Not applicable. Interventions: Not applicable. Measurements and Main Results: In three rounds, respectively, 28, 28, and 27 (of 33 invited) physicians together with 12, 10, and seven (of 19 invited) nurses participated. Patients and surrogates were involved in round one and 12 of 27 responded. Caregivers were mostly working in university affiliated hospitals in Northern Europe. During the Delphi process, most items were modified in order to reach consensus. Seven items lacked consensus after three rounds. The final consensus framework comprises the content and timing of four elements; three elements focused on caregiver-surrogate communication (admission meeting, follow-up meeting, goals-of-care meeting); and one element (weekly time-out meeting) focused on assessing preferences, prognosis, and proportionality of ICU treatment among professionals. Conclusions: Physicians, nurses, patients, and surrogates generated a consensus-based framework to guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in the ICU. Early, frequent, and scheduled family meetings combined with a repeated multidisciplinary time-out meeting may support decisions in relation to patient preferences, prognosis, and proportionality.

Triage decisions are concerned with the distribution of limited resources in times of crises, which is why the term is normally used in war and catastrophe scenarios. Under the leadership of the Academy for Ethics in Medicine (AEM) and the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI), intensive care physicians from nine specialist societies together with representatives from medical ethics and jurisprudence elaborated clinical and ethical recommendations on "necision on the allocation of intensive medical care resources in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic". These recommendations were published online in a first version on 26 March 2020 and comments were requested. After a critical consideration of the comments a second version was published on 16 April 2020. In the currently occurring second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the question of triage now threatens to become acute.Bei Triage-Entscheidungen handelt es sich um die Verteilung knapper Ressourcen in Krisenzeiten weshalb der Begriff üblicherweise in Kriegs- und Katastrophenszenarien verwendet wird. Unter Federführung der Akademie für Ethik in der Medizin e. V. (AEM) und der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI) erarbeiten Intensivmediziner von 9 Fachgesellschaften gemeinsam mit Vertretern aus Medizinethik und Jurisprudenz klinisch-ethische Empfehlungen zur „Entscheidung über die Zuteilung intensivmedizinischer Ressourcen im Kontext der COVID-19-Pandemie“, die in einer ersten Version am 26.03.2020 online veröffentlicht und zur Diskussion gestellt und nach kritischer Einarbeitung der Kommentare am 16.04.2020 in einer zweiten Version veröffentlicht werden. In der nun stattfindenden zweiten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie droht die Triage-Frage, akut zu werden.

Purpose: To evaluate the association between provider religion and religiosity and consensus about end-of-life care and explore if geographical and institutional factors contribute to variability in practice. Materials and Methods: Using a modified Delphi method 22 end-of-life issues consisting of 35 definitions and 46 statements were evaluated in 32 countries in North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa. A multidisciplinary, expert group from specialties treating patients at the end-of-life within each participating institution assessed the association between 7 key statements and geography, religion, religiosity and institutional factors likely influencing the development of consensus. Results: Of 3049 participants, 1366 (45%) responded. Mean age of respondents was 45 ± 9 years and 55% were females. Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was obtained for 77 (95%) of 81 definitions and statements. There was a significant difference in responses across geographical regions. South African and North American respondents were more likely to encourage patients to write advance directives. Fewer Eastern European and Asian respondents agreed with withdrawing life-sustaining treatments without consent of patients or surrogates. While respondent’s religion, years in practice or institution did not affect their agreement, religiosity, physician specialty and responsibility for end-of-life decisions did. Conclusions: Variability in agreement with key consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers, with provider-level variations related to differences in religiosity and specialty. Geography also plays a role in influencing some end-of-life practices. This information may help understanding ethical dilemmas and developing culturally sensitive end-of-life care strategies.

BACKGROUND End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p

Background: End-of-life care (EOLC) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is becoming increasingly more common but ethical standards are compromised by growing economic pressure. It was previously found that perception of non-beneficial treatment (NBT) was independently associated with the core burnout dimension of emotional exhaustion. It is unknown whether factors of the work environment also play arole in the context of EOLC.Objective: Is the working environment associated with perception of NBT or clinician burnout?Material and Methods: Physicians and nursing personnel from 11 German ICUs who took part in an international, longitudinal prospective observational study on EOLC in 2015-2016 were surveyed using validated instruments. Risk factors were obtained by multivariate multilevel analysis.Results: The participation rate was 49.8% of personnel working in the ICU at the time of the survey. Overall, 325 nursing personnel, 91residents and 26consulting physicians participated. Nurses perceived NBT more frequently than physicians. Predictors for the perception of NBT were profession, collaboration in the EOLC context, excessively high workload (each p0.001) and the numbers of weekend working days per month (p=0.012). Protective factors against burnout included intensive care specialization (p=0.001) and emotional support within the team (p0.001), while emotional exhaustion through contact with relatives at the end of life and a high workload were both increased (each p0.001).Discussion: Using the example of EOLC, deficits in the work environment and stress factors were uncovered. Factors of the work environment are associated with perceived NBT. To reduce NBT and burnout, the quality of the work environment should be improved and intensive care specialization and emotional support within the team enhanced. Interprofessional decision-making among the ICU team and interprofessional collaboration should be improved by regular joint rounds and interprofessional case discussions. Mitigating stressful factors such as communication with relatives and high workload require allocation of respective resources.

Both acute crises and chronically incriminating circumstances in people’s lives may lead to their being afflicted by psychological and somatic ailments. “Burnout” has been coined and established as the term for chronic occupational strain. Many professions claim to be extraordinarily affected by burnout, amongst others physicians and nurses, especially those working in anaesthesiology and critical care. Usually assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventary, the prevalence of moderate or severe burnout in these areas is estimated at about 30 % amongst nurses and about 40 % to 50 % amongst physicians. Both individual characteristics of those afflicted and occupational factors – as well as their interactions – are made responsible for causing burnout. The complexity of potentially stressful impingements, though, particularly within anaesthesiology and critical care, cannot be covered by the traditional burnout-paradigm. The plethora of recommendations found in popular science may be helpful in individual cases. However, there are no evidence-based preventive or therapeutic measures yet, that would endurably mitigate the sequelae of chronic occupational strain. On the one hand, occupationally burdensome factors needed to be registered more elaborately, for instance using the “Stress-Monitor” instrument. On the other hand, an in-hospital “peer-support system” has been developed and implemented in a Munich hospital recently. Anaesthetists and intensive care physicians have formed a network that supports health care workers surmounting acute occupational strain and thus helps to prevent its chronification. Ultimately, the goal of health care workers needed to consist of establishing individual work-related strategies to adequately cope with the manifold occupational stressors in a lifelong learning process.

Healthcare crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic, can lead to a pronounced national-and sometimes supranational-discrepancy between the need for medical care and the ability of the healthcare systems to provide such care. Such need can, among others, consist of personnel, pharmaceuticals, equipment, nutrition, transportation capacity, or reinforcements in general. In the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, personnel and intensive care beds with ventilators have turned out to be the immediate specific bottlenecks. Although all patients need to be given a fair chance to receive medical care, the treating teams need to selectively allot the resources available and hence must make prioritization decisions. This chapter formulates recommendations as to the allocation of scarce resources. It also discusses whether the focus of care should shift from patient-centered deontology to population-centered utilitarianism in healthcare crises.

Health-care delivery is a complex process dependent on many factors, such as availability of medical staff, apparatus and procedures, societal norms, legal stipulations, and cultural and religious convictions. Decisions regarding the extent of treatment at the end of patients’ lives can be especially difficult and conflictual for many reasons; prominent among them is the challenge of the assessment as to when or how long the application of life-sustaining treatments in emergency departments or intensive care units is appropriate, as opposed to when it only prolongs undue suffering for the patient and the family. However, prolonged contemplation or inaction will likely not foster optimal results of such decision-making processes. Rather, a firm knowledge of the relevant medical principles and practices, an understanding of the patients’ wishes and values, and a respectful leadership with persistence in communication, cooperation, and consensus-building will help to accomplish the mission to arrive at appropriate decisions regarding treatment and care in critical circumstances.

In many critically ill patients, it is uncertain whether the chance of survival and recovery justifies the suffering that is associated with (prolonged) life support. This chapter discusses the circumstances when limiting life-sustaining therapies may be permissible, advisable, or even imperative. Differences between withholding and withdrawing are commented on as well as the role of intensity- or time-limited treatment trials. We discuss strategies to make careful decisions on limiting life-sustaining therapies and suggest how withdrawal of life support can be implemented.

The Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) recently published a documentation for decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies. The wish to donate organs was not considered explicitly. Therefore the Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the DIVI together with the Ethics Section of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine worked out a supplementary footnote for the documentation form to address the individual case of a patient's wish to donate organs.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing recognition that high-quality care for patients and families in the ICU requires exemplary interprofessional collaboration and communication. One important aspect is how the ICU team makes complex decisions. However, no recommendations have been published on interprofessional shared decision-making. The aim of this project is to use systematic review and normative analysis by experts to examine existing evidence regarding interprofessional shared decision-making, describe its principles and provide ICU clinicians with recommendations regarding its implementation.DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases and used normative analyses to formulate recommendations regarding interprofessional shared decision-making.STUDY SELECTION: Three authors screened titles and abstracts in duplicate.DATA SYNTHESIS: Four papers assessing the effect of interprofessional shared decision-making on quality of care were identified, suggesting that interprofessional shared decision-making is associated with improved processes and outcomes. Five recommendations, largely based on expert opinion, were developed: 1) interprofessional shared decision-making is a collaborative process among clinicians that allows for shared decisions regarding important treatment questions; 2) clinicians should consider engaging in interprofessional shared decision-making to promote the most appropriate and balanced decisions; 3) clinicians and hospitals should implement strategies to foster an ICU climate oriented toward interprofessional shared decision-making; 4) clinicians implementing interprofessional shared decision-making should consider incorporating a structured approach; and 5) further studies are needed to evaluate and improve the quality of interprofessional shared decision-making in ICUs.CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider an interprofessional shared decision-making model that allows for the exchange of information, deliberation, and joint attainment of important treatment decisions.

Purpose: Apart from organizational issues, quality of inter-professional collaboration during ethical decision-making may affect the intention to leave one’s job. To determine whether ethical climate is associated with the intention to leave after adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics. Methods: Perceptions of the ethical climate among clinicians working in 68 adult ICUs in 12 European countries and the US were measured using a self-assessment questionnaire, together with job characteristics and intent to leave as a sub-analysis of the Dispropricus study. The validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire included seven factors: not avoiding decision-making at end-of-life (EOL), mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team, open interdisciplinary reflection, ethical awareness, self-reflective physician leadership, active decision-making at end-of-life by physicians, and involvement of nurses in EOL. Hierarchical mixed effect models were used to assess associations between these factors, and the intent to leave in clinicians within ICUs, within the different countries. Results: Of 3610 nurses and 1137 physicians providing ICU bedside care, 63.1% and 62.9% participated, respectively. Of 2992 participating clinicians, 782 (26.1%) had intent to leave, of which 27% nurses, 24% junior and 22.7% senior physicians. After adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics, mutual respect OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66- 0.90), open interdisciplinary reflection (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62–0.86]) and not avoiding EOL decisions (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77–0.98]) were all associated with a lower intent to leave. Conclusion: This is the first large multicenter study showing an independent association between clinicians’ intent to leave and the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU. Interventions to reduce intent to leave may be most effective when they focus on improving mutual respect, interdisciplinary reflection and active decision-making at EOL., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Objectives To develop an enhanced understanding of factors that influence providers' views about end-of-life care, we examined the contributions of provider, hospital, and country to variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care. Design and setting Data were drawn from a survey of providers' views on principles of end-of-life care obtained during the consensus process for the Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs study. Subjects Participants in Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs included physicians, nurses, and other providers. Our sample included 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries. Interventions None. Measurements and main results We examined views on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, using a three-level linear mixed model of responses from providers within hospitals within countries. Of 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries, 1% strongly disagreed, 7% disagreed, 11% were neutral, 44% agreed, and 36% strongly agreed with declining to offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation when not indicated. Of the total variability in those responses, 98%, 0%, and 2% were explained by differences among providers, hospitals, and countries, respectively. After accounting for provider characteristics and hospital size, the variance partition was similar. Results were similar for withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. Conclusions Variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers. Acknowledging the primary source of variability may facilitate efforts to achieve consensus and improve decision-making for critically ill patients and their family members at the end of life.

Importance End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time.Objective To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years.Design, Setting, and Participants Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision.Exposures Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort.Main Outcomes and Measures End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists.Results Of 13 625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P Conclusions and Relevance Among patients who had treatment limitations or died in 22 European ICUs in 2015-2016, compared with data reported from the same ICUs in 1999-2000, limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly more frequently and death without limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly less frequently. These findings suggest a shift in end-of-life practices in European ICUs, but the study is limited in that it excluded patients who survived ICU hospitalization without treatment limitations. Importance: End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time. Objective: To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision. Exposures: Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists. Results: Of 13625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P

Both acute crises and chronically incriminating circumstances in people's lives may lead to their being afflicted by psychological and somatic ailments. "Burnout" has been coined and established as the term for chronic occupational strain. Many professions claim to be extraordinarily affected by burnout, amongst others physicians and nurses, especially those working in anaesthesiology and critical care. Usually assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventary, the prevalence of moderate or severe burnout in these areas is estimated at about 30 % amongst nurses and about 40 % to 50 % amongst physicians. Both individual characteristics of those afflicted and occupational factors - as well as their interactions - are made responsible for causing burnout. The complexity of potentially stressful impingements, though, particularly within anaesthesiology and critical care, cannot be covered by the traditional burnout-paradigm. The plethora of recommendations found in popular science may be helpful in individual cases. However, there are no evidence-based preventive or therapeutic measures yet, that would endurably mitigate the sequelae of chronic occupational strain. On the one hand, occupationally burdensome factors needed to be registered more elaborately, for instance using the "Stress-Monitor" instrument. On the other hand, an in-hospital "peer-support system" has been developed and implemented in a Munich hospital recently. Anaesthetists and intensive care physicians have formed a network that supports health care workers surmounting acute occupational strain and thus helps to prevent its chronification. Ultimately, the goal of health care workers needed to consist of establishing individual work-related strategies to adequately cope with the manifold occupational stressors in a lifelong learning process.

Background Literature depicts differences in ethical decision-making (EDM) between countries and intensive care units (ICU). Objectives To better conceptualise EDM climate in the ICU and to validate a tool to assess EDM climates. Methods Using a modified Delphi method, we built a theoretical framework and a self-Assessment instrument consisting of 35 statements. This Ethical Decision-Making Climate Questionnaire (EDMCQ) was developed to capture three EDM domains in healthcare: interdisciplinary collaboration and communication; leadership by physicians; and ethical environment. This instrument was subsequently validated among clinicians working in 68 adult ICUs in 13 European countries and the USA. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine the structure of the EDM climate as perceived by clinicians. Measurement invariance was tested to make sure that variables used in the analysis were comparable constructs across different groups. Results Of 3610 nurses and 1137 physicians providing ICU bedside care, 2275 (63.1%) and 717 (62.9%) participated respectively. Statistical analyses revealed that a shortened 32-item version of the EDMCQ scale provides a factorial valid measurement of seven facets of the extent to which clinicians perceive an EDM climate: self-reflective and empowering leadership by physicians; practice and culture of open interdisciplinary reflection; culture of not avoiding end-of-life decisions; culture of mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team; active involvement of nurses in end-of-life care and decision-making; active decision-making by physicians; and practice and culture of ethical awareness. Measurement invariance of the EDMCQ across occupational groups was shown, reflecting that nurses and physicians interpret the EDMCQ items in a similar manner. Conclusions The 32-item version of the EDMCQ might enrich the EDM climate measurement, clinicians' behaviour and the performance of healthcare organisations. This instrument offers opportunities to develop tailored ICU team interventions., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Great differences in end-of-life practices in treating the critically ill around the world warrant agreement regarding the major ethical principles. This analysis determines the extent of worldwide consensus for end-of-life practices, delineates where there is and is not consensus, and analyzes reasons for lack of consensus. Critical care societies worldwide were invited to participate. Country coordinators were identified and draft statements were developed for major end-of-life issues and translated into six languages. Multidisciplinary responses using a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to anonymous demographic information. Consensus was prospectively defined as80% agreement. Definitions and statements not obtaining consensus were revised based on comments of respondents, and then translated and redistributed. Of the initial 1,283 responses from 32 countries, consensus was found for 66 (81%) of the 81 definitions and statements; 26 (32%) had90% agreement. With 83 additional responses to the original questionnaire (1,366 total) and 604 responses to the revised statements, consensus could be obtained for another 11 of the 15 statements. Consensus was obtained for informed consent, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, legal requirements, intensive care unit therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care. Consensus was obtained for 77 of 81 (95%) statements. Worldwide consensus could be developed for the majority of definitions and statements about end-of-life practices. Statements achieving consensus provide standards of practice for end-of-life care; statements without consensus identify important areas for future research.

BACKGROUND ICU care providers often feel that the care given to a patient may be inconsistent with their professional knowledge or beliefs. This study aimed to assess differences in, and reasons for, perceived inappropriate care (PIC) across ICU care providers with varying levels of decision-making power. METHODS We present subsequent analysis from the Appropricus Study, a cross-sectional study conducted on May 11, 2010, which included 1,218 nurses and 180 junior and 227 senior physicians in 82 European adult ICUs. The study was designed to evaluate PIC. The current study focuses on differences across health-care providers regarding the reasons for PIC in real patient situations. RESULTS By multivariate analysis, nurses were found to have higher PIC rates compared with senior and junior physicians. However, nurses and senior physicians were more distressed by perceived disproportionate care than were junior physicians (33%, 25%, and 9%, respectively; P = .026). A perceived mismatch between level of care and prognosis (mostly excessive care) was the most common cause of PIC. The main reasons for PIC were prognostic uncertainty among physicians, poor team and family communication, the fact that no one was taking the initiative to challenge the inappropriateness of care, and financial incentives to provide excessive care among nurses. Senior physicians, compared with nurses and junior physicians, more frequently reported pressure from the referring physician as a reason. Family-related factors were reported by similar proportions of participants in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS ICU care providers agree that excessive care is a true issue in the ICU. However, they differ in the reasons for the PIC, reflecting the roles each caregiver has in the ICU. Nurses charge physicians with a lack of initiative and poor communication, whereas physicians more often ascribe prognostic uncertainty. Teaching ICU physicians to deal with prognostic uncertainty in more adequate ways and to promote ethical discussions in their teams may be pivotal to improving moral distress and the quality of patient care.

Injury prevention efforts often focus on reducing the risk of potentially dangerous activities, facilities or equipment, such as diving, swimming pools or flotation devices. This paper aims to clarify the concepts of risk assessment and risk perception. Statistically, risk denotes the probability of an untoward event, often expressed in terms of potential financial loss. Subjectively, though, risk denotes an individual's perception of the likelihood and the seriousness of an undesirable event. Individual perception appears to be strongly influenced by personal traits and socio-cultural parameters. Risk assessment helps to form the basis for public health interventions. The implementation and effectiveness of these are influenced by individual risk perception. Therefore, preventive efforts need to incorporate and hopefully influence the determinants of risk perception among the target populations. Considering drowning, both hazard and incidence of submersion injuries are underestimated, whereas treatment options are usually overestimated. Consequently, individual risk alertness needs to be improved--drowning remains a ubiquitous risk.

Children have a right to safety, but this is still not optimally implemented throughout Europe. Furthermore, no joint commitment to change has been undertaken by the European Parliament, European Commission, or collectively by the EU Member States. This paper summarizes a White Book presented to governments entitled 'Priorities for Child Safety in the European Union,' requesting concerted action.The report is based on statistics provided by the World Health Organization as well as by research centers in the European Union Member States. Original research was contracted to the Mori Social Research Institute in 2001 in order to obtain an update on parents' and leading government officials' views on child safety.The leading causes of child injury deaths in the EU (road accidents, 48%, other unintentional 16%, intentional 13%, drowning 11%, fires 5%, falls 5%, and poisoning 2%) are the same in all Member States, but it is the distribution of injuries within each category that determines the unique profile of each. Adopting a number of best practices that have been identified for each injury area can reduce these injury deaths. Survey results show that the parents of children in Europe are concerned regarding child injuries, while government officials are still not making strong commitments to advance safety for children. A review of EU standards and legislation related to child safety shows that these are still incomplete and require changes.A joint commitment to reduce child accidental injury deaths in the EU is advocated, with a clear set of recommendations to act upon.

BACKGROUND: ICU care providers oft en feel that the care given to a patient may be inconsistent with their professional knowledge or beliefs. This study aimed to assess differences in, and reasons for, perceived inappropriate care (PIC) across ICU care providers with varying levels of decision-making power. METHODS: We present subsequent analysis from the Appropricus Study, a cross-sectional study conducted on May 11, 2010, which included 1,218 nurses and 180 junior and 227 senior physicians in 82 European adult ICUs. The study was designed to evaluate PIC. The current study focuses on differences across health-care providers regarding the reasons for PIC in real patient situations. RESULTS: By multivariate analysis, nurses were found to have higher PIC rates compared with senior and junior physicians. However, nurses and senior physicians were more distressed by perceived disproportionate care than were junior physicians (33%, 25%, and 9%, respectively; P 5.026). A perceived mismatch between level of care and prognosis (mostly excessive care) was the most common cause of PIC. Th e main reasons for PIC were prognostic uncertainty among physicians, poor team and family communication, the fact that no one was taking the initiative to challenge the inappropriateness of care, and financial incentives to provide excessive care among nurses. Senior physicians, compared with nurses and junior physicians, more frequently reported pressure from the referring physician as a reason. Family-related factors were reported by similar proportions of participants in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: ICU care providers agree that excessive care is a true issue in the ICU. However, they diff er in the reasons for the PIC, reflecting the roles each caregiver has in the ICU. Nurses charge physicians with a lack of initiative and poor communication, whereas physicians more oft en ascribe prognostic uncertainty. Teaching ICU physicians to deal with prognostic uncertainty in more adequate ways and to promote ethical discussions in their teams may be pivotal to improving moral distress and the quality of patient care.

Purpose The purpose of the study was to determine whether treatment preferences in patients' advance directives (ADs) are associated with life-supporting treatments received during end-of-life care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Material and methods This is a retrospective cohort study, including patients who died in 4 ICUs of a university hospital in Germany. Patients with ADs were matched with 2 patients each without ADs using propensity scores. Results Sixty-four (13%) of 477 patients had ADs, written a median of 109 weeks before admission. Five categories of applicability conditions were identified, most of them difficult to interpret in the ICU (eg, “advanced brain impairment” or “imminent death”). Advance directives contained a number of treatment refusals. Specifically, 63 of 64 refused “life-sustaining measures.” Compared to patients without ADs, patients with ADs were less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (9% vs 23%, P = .029) and more likely to have do-not-resuscitate orders (77% vs 56%, P = .007). Therapy-limiting decisions and ICU length of stay did not differ between those with or without ADs. Conclusions Patients with ADs are less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation but otherwise receive similar life-sustaining treatments compared to matched patients without ADs. More research is needed to explore reasons for potential noncompliance with patient preferences.

Das Ende unseres Lebens unterliegt ebenso wenig der Kontrolle des einzelnen wie der Beginn. Nicht jedem ist gegeben, sein Dasein in der Fulle der Jahre und in Wurde vollenden zu durfen. In unserer medikalisierten Gesellschaft, wo der Tod leider haufig als Versagen, als Ausdruck eines verlorenen Lebenskampfes gilt, kann der unausweichliche Abschied aber auch ein guter Abschied sein – angelsachsisch „a good death“.