Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J M Luce

Publications and source records attributed to J M Luce.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Withholding and withdrawal of life support: ethical, legal, and clinical aspects.

The withholding and withdrawal of life support are processes by which various medical interventions either are not given to or are taken away from patients, with the expectation that they will die as a result. The propriety of withholding and withdrawal of life support has been supported by ethical statements from groups such as the Task Force on Ethics of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and by a series of legal decisions beginning with the Quinlan case. Surveys of healthcare professionals indicate that most ICU physicians withhold and withdraw life support on a regular basis, that they consider these processes ethically equivalent, that they recommend withholding and withdrawal of life support based upon prognosis (which may be expressed as futility), and that they consider patient and surrogate wishes to be most important in deciding to forego life-sustaining treatment, but place these wishes in the context of their own assessment of prognosis. Observational studies show that: withholding and withdrawal of life support occur frequently, the frequency has increased over the past several years in some ICUs, patients and families generally agree with physician recommendations to limit care or request such limitation, disagreements sometimes occur on this issue, withdrawal of life support occurs more commonly than withholding of life support in most ICUs, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is the therapy most frequently withheld, mechanical ventilation is the therapy most frequently withdrawn, this withdrawal process usually is gradual, and it usually is facilitated by the administration of sedatives and analgesics. Clinical information such as this is helping to define a standard of care in the area of withholding and withdrawal of life support.

Critical Care↗
PubMed1996

Physician responses to a hospital policy allowing them to not offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether physicians followed a hospital policy permitting them to not offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to patients considered unlikely to benefit from this therapy. DESIGN: Prospective series. SETTING: San Francisco General Hospital, a university-affiliated public hospital. PATIENTS: Attending physicians were interviewed about patients admitted over a period of 5 consecutive months for whom do-not resuscitate (DNR) orders were written. Only the first patient for whom each physician wrote a DNR order was included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses of physicians to questions regarding their initiation of DNR orders for these patients. RESULTS: Sixty-nine physicians responded to questions about DNR orders written for 69 patients. Fifty-seven of these physicians said that they were aware of the hospital policy, and 49 of the 57 physicians said that they generally agreed with it. Thirty-three physicians felt that CPR should be offered only to patients likely to benefit from it. In contrast, 36 physicians said that CPR should be offered to all patients, regardless of benefit. CPR was offered to 41 patients and 15 surrogates; 27 of these patients were considered to be unlikely to benefit from CPR. CONCLUSION: Despite a policy that allows them to do otherwise, physicians usually offered CPR to patients, regardless of benefit. Most physicians believed that CPR should be offered to all patients. These findings suggest that policies such as that of San Francisco General Hospital may not be compelling because physicians hold attitudes that are inconsistent with the policies.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1996

Use of risk-adjusted outcome data for quality improvement by public hospitals.

In 1993 the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) began public release of risk-adjusted monitoring of outcomes (RAMO) under the California Hospital Outcomes Project. We studied how 17 acute are public hospitals in California used these RAMO data for quality improvement purposes following their initial distribution, first by analyzing the outcome data for San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center as recommended by OSHPD and, second, by querying the departments at the other 16 public hospitals to determine how their own analyses compared. We found that the hospitals generally did minimal analyses of the OSHPD RAMO data and considered the data of little value to them. Only 3 hospitals initiated quality improvement activities based on their data review. The major reasons given by the hospitals for not using the RAMO data were that their outcomes were adequate, as verified by a comparison of their observed outcomes and those expected after risk-adjustment; that the hospitals had too few patients in the diagnostic categories; that they had too few resources; and that they were not concerned with the data's public release. Other possible explanations were that awareness of the California Hospital Outcomes Project was not widespread at the time of the study, that the RAMO data were not distributed in a way that encouraged their use, and that public hospitals were not inclined to use the outcome data because the project was imposed on them. Whatever the explanation, our study suggests that the California Hospital Outcomes Project has had little effect on quality improvement in public hospitals.

California↗
PubMed1995

Cost and outcome of intensive care for patients with AIDS, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and severe respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs and outcomes associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-related Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), and severe respiratory failure. DESIGN: Survival and cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: A large municipal teaching hospital serving an indigent population. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients intubated and mechanically ventilated for AIDS, PCP, and respiratory failure from 1981 through 1991 (n = 113). The cohort was separated into three groups for analysis: patients admitted to the ICU in 1981 through 1985 (era I, n = 43), those admitted in 1986 through 1988 (era II, n = 33), and those admitted in 1989 through 1991 (era III, n = 37). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital charges and survival time; cost per year of life saved, using a zero-cost, zero-life assumption. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (25%) of the 113 patients mechanically ventilated for PCP and respiratory failure survived to hospital discharge: six (14%) of 43 in era I, 13 (39%) of 33 in era II, and nine (24%) of 37 in era III (P = .04). Post-ICU admission charges averaged $57,874 for the entire cohort, remaining relatively stable across the three eras. Cost of care for survivors was significantly more expensive than for those dying before discharge. The cost of ICU admission and subsequent hospitalization averaged $174,781 per year of life saved; $305,795 in era I, $94,528 in era II, and $215,233 in era III. Improved survival rates and shorter lengths of ICU stay led to the improved cost-effectiveness in era II, while the opposite trends resulted in worsening cost-effectiveness in recent years. The strongest predictors of hospital mortality in era III were low CD4 cell counts on hospital admission and the development of pneumothorax during mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of intensive care for patients with PCP and severe respiratory failure improved during the first 8 years of the AIDS epidemic but fell in recent years such that it is now below that of many accepted medical interventions.

AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections↗
PubMed1995

Physicians do not have a responsibility to provide futile or unreasonable care if a patient or family insists.

OBJECTIVE: This article was written to argue that physicians are not ethically obligated to provide care which they consider futile, unreasonable, or both, either voluntarily or in response to patient or surrogate demands. DATA SOURCES: Data used to prepare this article were drawn from published articles, including original investigations, position papers and editorials in the author's personal files. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were selected for their relevance to the subjects of medical ethics, the concepts of futility and medical reasonableness, case law, and healthcare reform. DATA EXTRACTION: The author extracted all applicable data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Physicians may feel obligated to provide care in all clinical circumstances due to the single master view of medicine and the ethical principle of autonomy. However, care may be considered futile according to several definitions of that word, including that which describes futile treatment as something that does not benefit the patient as a whole. Furthermore, care may be considered unreasonable if it is excessive and not generally agreed upon. Physician refusal to provide futile or unreasonable care is supported by the ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, and distributive justice. The last principle is particularly relevant in the current climate of healthcare reform. CONCLUSIONS: Although the issue of physician refusal of requested care has not been resolved by case law or legal statute, it is supported by compelling ethical principles. Physicians are not ethically required to provide futile or unreasonable care, especially to patients who are brain dead, vegetative, critically or terminally ill with little chance of recovery, and unlikely to benefit from cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Withholding and withdrawing of life support from patients with severe head injury.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the withholding or withdrawing of life support from patients with severe head injury. SETTING: San Francisco General Hospital, a city and county hospital with a Level I trauma center. DESIGN: A standardized questionnaire was used to collect data on demographics and functional outcome of severely head-injured (Glasgow Coma Score of < or = 7) patients admitted to the medical-surgical intensive care unit, and to interview the patients' physician and family members. PATIENTS: Forty-seven patients who were admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit over a 1-yr period. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-four patients had life support withheld or withdrawn, and 23 patients did not. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physician and family separately assessed patient's probable functional outcome, degree of communication between them, reasons important in recommending or deciding on discontinuation of life support, and the result of action taken. Six months later, the families reviewed the process of their decision, how well physician(s) had communicated, and what might have improved communication. Of 24 patients with life support discontinued, 22 died; two were discharged from the hospital. Twenty-three of the 24 patients had a poor prognosis on admission. Of the 23 patients who were continued on life support for the duration of their hospitalization, ten had a poor (p < .001) prognosis on admission. Prognosis improved for two patients from the first group and five from the latter. Family's assessment of prognosis agreed with physician's assessment in 22 of the 24 patients from whom life support was discontinued (p < .001). Physicians' ability to convey the prognosis appeared to influence families' assessments. Physicians' considerations in recommending limitation of care and families' considerations in making decisions were the same, primarily an inevitably poor prognosis. Neither physician nor families cited cost or availability of care as a deciding factor. Two families disagreed with the recommendation to limit care after initial agreement because the patients' prognosis improved from "likely death" to "vegetative." Care was therefore continued, and both patients remained vegetative 6 months after admission to the hospital and discharge to chronic care facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Life support is commonly withheld or withdrawn from patients with severe head injury at San Francisco General Hospital, and usually it is accompanied by death. A reciprocal consideration exists in most cases between the physician and family making the difficult decision to limit care. Care is provided for patients whose families request it despite physician recommendations.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

The changing physician-patient relationship in critical care medicine under health care reform.

American society and the medical profession have historically been dominated by a "single master" view that emphasizes unrestrained advocacy for individual patients and prohibits physicians, including those who work in critical care units, from being providers and rationers of health care services simultaneously. With its emphasis on universal access and cost containment, health care reform requires that society and the medical profession balance this individualistic ethic with a communitarian ethic that stresses proportional advocacy for all patients and encourages physicians and patients to help define the scope of services their health care institutions provide. Ideally, this balance will allow the transition from a "rule of rescue" in which large sums of money are spent on therapies that may have only marginal benefit to a "rule of reason" in which this money can be used for primary and preventive care.

Beneficence↗
PubMed1994

The ethical appropriateness of using prognostic scoring systems in clinical management.

The four ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and social justice provide a framework for making medical decisions, including those that involve the administration of life-sustaining therapies. In recent years, a number of prognostic scoring systems, including the Acute Physiology Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) system, have been developed to augment clinical judgment in determining which critically ill patients are likely to benefit from such therapies. Although these systems all have limitations, their use in decision making is as ethically appropriate as is the use of clinical judgment, which has its own limitations and has been used for years.

AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections↗
PubMed1994

A brief history of health care quality assessment and improvement in the United States.

We review the history and current efforts to assess and improve health care in the United States. This process has involved a host of government agencies and commissions, professional organizations, insurance underwriters, corporations, and more recently, market forces. Traditional approaches to quality control have stressed case-by-case analysis and identifying outliers. Newer approaches include creating practice guidelines and profiles of hospitals and physicians. The joint goals of quality improvement and cost control can best be realized if institutions and practitioners embrace these new approaches and use them to enhance their performances.

History, 19th Century↗
PubMed1993

Introduction of new technology into critical care practice: a history of HA-1A human monoclonal antibody against endotoxin.

OBJECTIVES: HA-1A, a monoclonal antibody against endotoxin, was thought to be effective in treating patients with Gram-negative sepsis. Because of this possibility, many clinicians felt obligated to use the drug and assumed that its product license application would be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nevertheless, the efficacy of HA-1A was not conclusively demonstrated by a first clinical trial. The FDA rejected the product license application and requested a second clinical trial, which was suspended after excess mortality was noted in patients treated with HA-1A. This review of the history of the drug was prepared to provide clinicians and sepsis investigators with information about HA-1A and, by extension, the process by which new technology is introduced into critical care practice. DATA SOURCES: Data used to prepare this review were obtained from the author's personal files as well as the computerized MEDLINE database. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected for their relevance to the history of HA-1A and their relevance to the introduction of potentially useful medical technology. DATA EXTRACTION: The author extracted all applicable data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Although the first clinical trial of HA-1A suggested that the drug was effective in treating patients with Gram-negative bacteremia with or without shock, further analysis by the FDA indicated a benefit only for bacteremic patients with shock. Furthermore, the original study design was not followed, leading in part to the FDA's refusal of the product license application. Concern also was raised over the issue of identifying which patients should receive HA-1A and the cost of the drug, which would have put it past the reach of some American hospitals and thereby, would have conflicted with the ethical principle of social justice. Finally, the second trial suggested that HA-1A might be harmful. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the FDA's action, the issues raised about HA-1A, and the results of the two clinical trials, clinicians should not use the drug. The history of HA-1A provides insights about how new technology is and will be introduced into critical care practice.

Antibodies, Monoclonal↗
PubMed1993

Current concepts in cerebral protection.

In the past, physicians viewed ischemic injury as an irreversible event. Modern science has shown that this view is incorrect and that ischemic neuronal damage is an ongoing, active process that might be amenable to various therapies. Figure 2 illustrates some of the possible sites where these therapies might be active. Pending evidence of their effectiveness, cerebral protection can best be achieved by maintaining adequate CPP and CBF during periods when patients are at risk for cerebral ischemia, restoring perfusion after ischemia occurs, and optimizing the metabolic milieu of the ischemic penumbra.

Animals↗
PubMed1992

Ordering and administration of sedatives and analgesics during the withholding and withdrawal of life support from critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine why and how sedatives and analgesics are ordered and administered during the withholding and withdrawal of life support from critically ill patients. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Medical-surgical intensive care units at a county hospital and a university hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive 1-year sample of 22 patients from whom life support was withheld or withdrawn in one intensive care unit at a county hospital and a random sample of 22 similar patients in the intensive care unit in the university hospital over the same period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians and nurses were interviewed to determine their reasons for ordering and administering drugs, and medical records were reviewed to document amounts of drugs ordered and administered. RESULTS: Drugs were given to 75% of patients during withholding and withdrawal of life support. Patients who did not receive medication were comatose and considered incapable of benefiting from sedation and analgesia. The median time until death following the initiation of the withholding or withdrawal of life support was 3.5 hours in the patients who received drugs and 1.3 hours in those patients who did not (P, not significant). Physicians ordered drugs to decrease pain in 88% of patients, to decrease anxiety in 85%, to decrease air hunger in 76%, to comfort families in 82%, and to hasten death in 39%; in no instance was hastening death the only reason cited. The amounts of benzodiazepines and opiates averaged 2.2 mg/h of diazepam and 3.3 mg/h of morphine sulfate in the 24 hours before withholding and withdrawal of life support and 9.8 mg/h and 11.2 mg/h in the 24 hours thereafter (P less than .025 and P less than .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Large doses of sedatives and analgesics were ordered primarily to relieve pain and suffering during the withholding and withdrawal of life support, and death was not hastened by drug administration.

Analgesics↗