Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S J Youngner

Publications and source records attributed to S J Youngner.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Evaluation of a treatment limitation policy with a specific treatment-limiting order page.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about misinterpretation, misunderstanding, poor communication, and lack of documentation prompted a revision of our hospital's treatment limitation policy. The revised policy was designed to explicate do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, structure the use of DNR and other treatment-limiting orders in a logical and standard way, and improve communication. Use of a Specific Treatment-Limiting Order Page (STOP) was required. METHODS: To evaluate the policy's effects, we conducted (1) a prospective cohort study (involving 2733 patients) of treatment limitation practices before and after the new policy and (2) cross-sectional surveys of 58 nurses and 62 physicians. Outcome measures included documented treatment-limiting orders, documented discussions of these decisions, and deaths. Staff opinions about effects on communication and patient care were elicited. RESULTS: Rates of death (5.4% before and 5.6% after the policy; P = .80) and rates of DNR orders (9.3% vs 9.2%, P = .9) did not change. The use of the STOP enhanced the clarity of DNR orders and, among DNR patients, greatly increased the frequency of orders limiting 12 other specific treatments for conditions short of arrest. For example, before the policy, orders prohibited mechanical ventilation in 2% of DNR patients, compared with 66% after the policy (P < .001). Staff reported that the policy improved communication among health professionals, patients, and families. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment limitation policy with the STOP improved documentation and communication of treatment-limiting decisions. On the basis of our results, we offer a STOP for use and evaluation by others.

Aged↗
PubMed1994

Prior capacity of patients lacking decision making ability early in hospitalization: implications for advance directive administration. The SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the appropriateness of hospitalization as the time to elicit patients' medical care preferences, the authors evaluated the capability of seriously ill patients to participate in decision making early in hospitalization and their decision making capacity two weeks before hospital entry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with retrospective evaluation of preadmission decision making capacity. SETTING: Five acute care teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Four thousand three hundred one acutely ill hospitalized adults meeting predetermined severity of illness criteria in nine specific disease categories. MEASUREMENTS: Surrogate decision makers' estimates of the prior mental capacities of patients unable to be interviewed early in hospitalization about care preferences due to intubation, coma, or cognitive impairment. Comparison of the demographics, degrees of sickness at admission, and outcomes of interviewable vs noninterviewable patients. MAIN RESULTS: Forty percent of the patients were not interviewable concerning preferences. Of these, 83% could have participated in treatment decisions two weeks prior to hospitalization. The patients who were not interviewable were more acutely ill, had less chronic disease, and were more likely to die during hospitalization than the interviewable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many acutely ill patients likely to die in the hospital lost their ability to make medical care decisions around the time of hospital admission. Preferences for care and advance directives should be discussed in the outpatient setting or very early in hospital admission.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed1994

Depression, competence, and the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The authors explore the possibility that psychiatrists inappropriately extend their views on suicide by the medically well to refusal of lifesaving treatment by the seriously medically ill. METHOD: The legal and bioethics literature on competence to refuse lifesaving treatment and the possible impact of depression on this refusal is reviewed. RESULTS: Over the past 20 years, the burden of proof concerning the mental competence of seriously medically ill patients who refuse lifesaving treatment has shifted to the persons who seek to override these refusals. However, in psychiatry a patient's desire to die is generally considered to be evidence of an impaired capacity to make decisions about lifesaving treatment. This contrast between ethical traditions is brought into clinical focus during the evaluation and treatment of medically ill patients with depression who refuse lifesaving treatment. The clinical evaluation of the effect of depression on a patient's capacity to make medical decisions is difficult for several reasons: 1) depression is easily seen as a "reasonable" response to serious medical illness, 2) depression produces more subtle distortions of decision making than delirium or psychosis (i.e., preserving the understanding of medical facts while impairing the appreciation of their personal importance), and 3) a diagnosis of major depression is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining that the patient's medical decision making is impaired. CONCLUSIONS: Depression can be diagnosed and treated in patients with serious medical illness. But after optimizing medical and psychiatric treatment and determining that the patient is competent to make medical decisions, it may be appropriate to honor the patient's desire to die.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed1993

The dead donor rule: should we stretch it, bend it, or abandon it?

The dead donor rule--that persons must be dead before their organs are taken--is a central part of the moral framework underlying organ procurement. Efforts to increase the pool of transplantable organs have been forced either to redefine death (e.g., anencephaly) or take advantage of ambiguities in the current definition of death (e.g., the Pittsburgh protocol). Society's growing acceptance of circumstances in which health care professionals can hasten a patient's death also may weaken the symbolic importance of the dead donor rule. We consider the implications of these efforts to continually revise the line between life and death and ask whether it would be preferable to abandon the dead donor rule and rely entirely on informed consent as a safeguard against abuse.

Brain Death↗