Cette réédition totalement revue et enrichie contribue à une appropriation des évolutions législatives portées par la loi du 2 février 2016 créant de nouveaux droits en faveur des malades et des personnes en fin de vie (droits de la personne, sédation profonde et continue, souffrance, directives anticipées opposables, etc.). Les conditions du mourir interrogent à la fois nos obligations sociales et les exigences du soin. Alors que s'instaurent une nouvelle culture de la fin de vie, de nouvelles solidarités, quelles seront les incidences sur les pratiques professionnelles au service de la personne malade et de ses proches ? Ces situations toujours singulières, irréductibles aux débats généraux portant sur "la mort dans la dignité" justifient une exigence de clarification, la restitution d’expériences et la transmission de savoirs vrais.
Dans une approche pluridisciplinaire, cet ouvrage associe les meilleures compétences pour proposer une synthèse rigoureuse et complète des réflexions et des expériences au cœur des débats les plus délicats de notre société. Il constitue une indispensable référence à destination des professionnels mais tout autant d'un large public, la concertation nationale sur la fin de vie ayant fait apparaître un important besoin d'informations dans ces domaines à la fois intimes et publics.
Les infirmiers peuvent apporter une aide à la décision dans les situations d’urgence lors d’un choc septique, notamment si le malade n’a pas rédigé de directives anticipées et/ou désigné une personne de confiance. Ils peuvent entreprendre ou faciliter la collégialité des décisions nécessaires sur le plan juridique et éthique. Les habitus d’une équipe à la réflexion éthique et au recueil de données initial sont les garants du respect de la parole du patient.
Aim: To determine if frailty is associated with poor outcome following in-hospital cardiac arrest; to find if there is a “frailty threshold” beyond which cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) becomes futile.
Methods: Retrospective review of patients aged over 60 years who received CPR between May 2017 and December 2018, in a tertiary referral hospital, which does not provide primary coronary revascularisation. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Charlson Comorbidity Index were retrospectively assigned.
Results: Data for 90 patients were analysed, the median age was 77 (IQR 70-83); 71% were male; 44% were frail (CFS > 4). Frailty was predictive of in-hospital mortality independent of age, comorbidity and cardiac arrest rhythm (OR 2.789 95% CI 1.145–6.795). No frail patients (CFS > 4) survived to hospital discharge, regardless of cardiac arrest rhythm, whilst 13 (26%) of the non-frail (CFS = 4) patients survived to hospital discharge. Of the 13 survivors (Age 72; range 61–86), 12 were alive at 1 year and had a good neurological outcome, the outcome for the remaining patient was unknown.
Conclusion: Frail patients are unlikely to survive to hospital discharge following in-hospital cardiac arrest, these results may facilitate clinical decision making regarding whether CPR may be considered futile. The Clinical Frailty Scale is a simple bedside assessment that can provide invaluable information when considering treatment escalation plans, as it becomes more widespread, larger scale observations using prospective assessments of frailty may become feasible.
Background: The association between palliative care and life-sustaining treatment following emergency department (ED) resuscitation is unclear. This study aims to analyze the usage of palliative care and life-sustaining treatments among ED triage level I resuscitation patients based on a nationally representative sample of patients in Taiwan.
Methods: A matched-pair retrospective cohort study was conducted to examine the association between palliative care and outcome variables using multivariate logistic regression and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses. Between 2009 and 2013, 336 ED triage level I resuscitation patients received palliative care services (palliative care group) under a universal health insurance scheme. Retrospective cohort matching was performed with those who received standard care at a ratio of 1:4 (usual care group). Outcome variables included the number of visits to emergency and outpatient departments, hospitalization duration, total medical expenses, utilization of life-sustaining treatments, and duration of survival following ED triage level I resuscitation.
Results: The mean survival duration following level I resuscitation was less than 1 year. Palliative care was administered to 15% of the resuscitation cohort. The palliative care group received significantly less life-sustaining treatment than did the usual care group.
Conclusion: Among patients who underwent level I resuscitation, palliative care was inversely correlated with the scope of life-sustaining treatments. Furthermore, triage level I resuscitation status may present a possible new field for starting palliative care intervention and reducing low-value care.
The devastating pandemic that has stricken the worldwide population induced an unprecedented influx of patients in ICUs, raising ethical concerns not only surrounding triage and withdrawal of life support decisions, but also regarding family visits and quality of end-of-life support. These ingredients are liable to shake up our ethical principles, sharpen our ethical dilemmas, and lead to situations of major caregiver sufferings. Proposals have been made to rationalize triage policies in conjunction with ethical justifications. However, whatever the angle of approach, imbalance between utilitarian and individual ethics leads to unsolvable discomforts that caregivers will need to overcome. With this in mind, we aimed to point out some critical ethical choices with which ICU caregivers have been confronted during the Covid-19 pandemic and to underline their limits. The formalized strategies integrating the relevant tools of ethical reflection were disseminated without deviating from usual practices, leaving to intensivists the ultimate choice of decision.
Background: Emergency departments routinely offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation and endotracheal intubation to patients in resuscitative states. With increasing longevity and prevalence of chronic conditions in Australia, there has been growing need to uptake and implement advance care directives and resuscitation plans. This study investigates the frequency of the presence of advance care directives and resuscitation plans and its utilisation in cardiopulmonary and endotracheal intubation decision making.
Methods: Retrospective audit of electronic patients’ medical records aged =65 years presenting over a 3-month period. Data collected included demographics, triage categories, advance care directive and/or resuscitation plans/orders status.
Results: A total of 6439 patients were included representing 29% of the total patient population during the study period. Participants were randomly selected (N = 300); mean age was 78.7 (±8.1) years. An advance care directive was present in only 8% and one in three patients (37%) had a previous resuscitation plan/order. Senior consultant was present at the department for consultation by junior doctors for most of the patients (82%). Acknowledgment of either advance care directive or resuscitation plans/orders in clinical notes was only 9.5% (n = 116).
Conclusion: Advance care directive prevalence was low with resuscitation plans/orders being more common. However, clinician acknowledgement was infrequent for both.
Background: Data are scarce on the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and limitation of care orders (LCOs) during physician-staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) missions. We investigated LCOs and the quality of information available when physicians made treatment decisions in prehospital care.
Methods: A prospective, nationwide, multicentre study including all Finnish physician-staffed HEMS bases during a six-month study period. All HEMS missions where a patient had pre-existing LCOs and/or a new LCO were included.
Results: There were 335 missions with LCOs, which represented 5.7% of all HEMS missions (n=5,895). There were 181 missions with pre-existing LCOs, and a total of 170 new LCOs were issued. Usually, the pre-existing LCO was a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order only (n=133, 74%). The most frequent new LCO was ‘termination of cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ only (n=61, 36%), while ‘no intensive care’ combined with some other LCO was almost as common (n=54, 32%). When issuing a new LCO for patients who did not have any preceding LCOs (n=153), in every other (49%) case the physicians thought that the patient should have already had an LCO. When the physician made treatment decisions, patients’ background information from on-scene paramedics was available in 260 (78%) of the LCO missions, while patients’ medical records were available in 67 (20%) of the missions.
Conclusion: Making LCOs or treating patients with pre-existing LCOs is an integral part of HEMS physicians’ work, with every twentieth mission involving LCO patients. The new LCOs mostly concerned withholding or withdrawal of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intensive care.
There is a concern that as a result of COVID-19 there will be a shortage of ventilators for patients requiring respiratory support. This concern has resulted in significant debate about whether it is appropriate to withdraw ventilation from one patient in order to provide it to another patient who may benefit more. The current advice available to doctors appears to be inconsistent, with some suggesting withdrawal of treatment is more serious than withholding, while others suggest that this distinction should not be made. We argue that there is no ethically relevant difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment and that suggesting otherwise may have problematic consequences. If doctors are discouraged from withdrawing treatment, concern about a future shortage may make them reluctant to provide ventilation to patients who are unlikely to have a successful outcome. This may result in underutilisation of available resources. A national policy is urgently required to provide doctors with guidance about how patients should be prioritised to ensure the maximum benefit is derived from limited resources.
PURPOSE: Women who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have similar rates of survival to hospital admission as men; however, women are less likely to survive to hospital discharge. We hypothesized that women would have higher rates of "do not attempt resuscitation" (DNAR) orders and that this order would be associated with lower use of aggressive interventions.
METHODS: We identified adult hospital admissions with a diagnosis of cardiac arrest (ICD-9 427.5) from the 2010 California State Inpatient Dataset. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between patient sex and a DNAR order within the first 24 h of admission, adjusting for patient demographic characteristics and comorbid medical conditions. In secondary analysis, procedures performed after establishment of DNAR order and survival to hospital discharge were compared by sex.
FINDINGS: We analyzed 6562 patients (44% women, 56% men) who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and survived to hospital admission. In unadjusted analysis, more women than men had establishment of a DNAR order during the first 24 h of admission (23.4% versus 19.3%; P < 0.01). After adjusting for age, race, and comorbid conditions, women remained significantly more likely to have a DNAR order established during the first 24 h of their hospital admission after cardiac arrest compared with men (odds ratio = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.40). No sex difference was found in procedures used after DNAR order was established.
IMPLICATIONS: Female survivors of cardiac arrest are significantly more likely than men to have a DNAR order established within the first 24 h of in-hospital treatment. The establishment of a DNAR order is associated with patients undergoing fewer procedures than individuals who do not have a DNAR order established. Given that patients who have a DNAR order receive less-aggressive intervention after arrest, it is possible that an early DNAR order may contribute to sex differences in survival to hospital discharge.
'Futility' is a contentious term that has eluded clear definition, with proposed descriptions either too strict or too vague to encompass the many facets of medical care. Requests for futile care are often surrogates for requests of a more existential character, covering the whole range of personal, emotional, cultural and spiritual needs. Physicians and other practitioners can use requests for futile care as a valuable opportunity to connect with their patients at a deeper level than the mere biomedical diagnosis. Current debate around Canada's changing regulatory and legal framework highlights challenges in appropriately balancing the benefits and burdens created by requests for futile care.
The COVID-19 pandemic and its sequelae have created scenarios of scarce medical resources, leading to the prospect that healthcare systems have faced or will face difficult decisions about triage, allocation and reallocation. These decisions should be guided by ethical principles and values, should not be made before crisis standards have been declared by authorities, and, in most cases, will not be made by bedside clinicians. Do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) and withholding and withdrawing decisions should be made according to standard determination of medical appropriateness and futility, but there are unique considerations during a pandemic. Transparent and clear communication is crucial, coupled with dedication to provide the best possible care to patients, including palliative care. As medical knowledge about COVID-19 grows, more will be known about prognostic factors that can guide these difficult decisions.
The daughter of a man who successfully fought to establish that patients have a right to be consulted on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has launched a High Court challenge against Matt Hancock, the health and social care secretary for England.
Kate Masters has written a letter before action to Hancock after news reports suggested that blanket bans on CPR were being imposed during the covid-19 pandemic.
In the letter, she called on Hancock to give an emergency direction to all healthcare professionals providing that “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) orders must not be imposed unless the patient or family have been consulted and certain information provided.
[Début de l'article]
The coronavirus pandemic is forcing clinicians, health care institutions, and public officials to develop crisis standards of care that differ radically from ordinary care for services such as diagnostic testing and mechanical ventilation. Under normal conditions, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is provided unless a patient has a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order that is based on the wishes of the patient or a surrogate. Health care workers are trained to start resuscitation immediately and not wait for more experienced personnel to arrive. It is assumed that intensive care will be available subsequently and that resuscitation attempts pose no substantial risks to clinicians or other patients. Crisis standards during a major surge in Covid-19 patients challenge typical assumptions regarding resuscitation and default provision of CPR.
The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is placing significant strain on health-care resources worldwide Although most patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) do not require hospital admission, severe illness commonly leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation. Unfortunately, ventilator scarcity has become a bottleneck in the provision of care to critically ill patients with COVID-19.
Previously-stated DNR status would seem irrelevant to ventilator allocation, and yet some existing and proposed guidelines for triage during a public health emergency list DNR status in the list of criteria for excluding patients from getting ventilators or other life-saving health care. This approach is in direct opposition to the generally agreed-upon goal of maximizing the number of survivors, and could result in confusion and public mistrust of the health care system.
In current debates about allocation of scarce ICU resources, we suggest there is undue optimism about the ‘good’ of intensive care unit (ICU) access. Most critical COVID-19 patients who receive access to a ventilator will still die. The minority who survive will likely leave with significant morbidity and a long and uncertain road to recovery. This reality is obscured in the current bioethics literature on ICU triage in which scarcity and value are conflated.
[Début de l'article]
The current outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 has and continues to put huge pressure on intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Many patients with COVID-19 require some form of respiratory support and often have prolonged ICU stays, which results in a critical shortage of ICU beds. It is therefore not always physically possible to treat all the patients who require intensive care, raising major ethical dilemmas related to which patients should benefit from the limited resources and which should not. Here we consider some of the approaches to the acute shortages seen during this and other epidemics, including some guidelines for triaging ICU admissions and treatments.
Objectives: To map current practice regarding discussions around resuscitation across England and Scotland in patients with cancer admitted acutely to hospital and to demonstrate the value of medical students in rapidly collecting national audit data.
Methods: Collaborators from the Macmillan medical student network collected data from 251 patient encounters across eight hospitals in England and Scotland. Data were collected to identify whether discussion regarding resuscitation was documented as having taken place during inpatient admission to acute oncology. As an audit standard, it was expected that all patients should be invited to discuss resuscitation within 24 hr of admission.
Results: Resuscitation discussions were had in 43.1% of admissions and of these 64.0% were within 24 hr; 27.6% of all admissions. 6.5% of patients had a “do not attempt resuscitation” order prior to admission with a difference noted between patients receiving palliative and curative treatment (8.5% and 0.39%, respectively, p < .05). Discussions regarding escalation of care took place in only 29.3% of admissions.
Conclusions: These data highlight deficiencies in the number of discussions regarding resuscitation that are being conducted with cancer patients that become acutely unwell. It also demonstrates the value of medical student collaboration in rapidly collecting national audit data.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of a patient with an uncertain resuscitation status, and a discharging implantable cardiac defibrillator, presents a significant ethical challenge to healthcare professionals in the emergency department. Presently, no literature discusses these challenges or their implications for ethical healthcare delivery. This report will discuss the issues that arose during the management of such a case and attempt to raise awareness among healthcare professionals to ensure better preparation for similar situations.